A request for the pro-NHLPA

[Onion Boy]

A hard cap will protect the players' heads more effectively

I concede the point.

 

[vanlady]

If the NHL loses this dispute, we'll be watching a new league within a decade.

OMG nobody has learned anything from '94. I listened to this same crap back then the only thing that has changed is the date and the names of the teams going bankrupt. Guess who those teams were in 94 Detroit, Colorado and Vancouver. Boy have things changed.

For those of you that think that the NFL is such a panacia for competetive balance ask yourself this, who has won the last 2 out of 3 Superbowls and is on target for a 3rd, and what team has not been in the playoffs in 9 years ooohhhh that would be the San Diego Chargers, the Blackhawks of the NFL. Caps do not improve competative balance, revenue sharing does

For those of you think that this is going to impasse, any judge would laugh the NHL out the court room. Here let me give you a few links, if the NHL dares try to claim financial doom, oh boy the owners will not be happy simply because the NLRB will issue an order for the NHLPA to rip apart the owners books not the URO's and being that some of the owners are currently under the SCC and IRS microscope they sure are not going to be happy about having their complete financial affair made public record. Oh and by the way the NLRB will rule that arena and any associated businesses are not exempt.

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/288/288-574.txt
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/october95/95-6048.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...72.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Quite simply this, since the NHL has failed at any turn to submit a counter proposal to the union they are in a position of bargaining in bad faith. Garry Bettman and Belkins comments are going to burn the NHL, but what is going to burn them more is the fact that the union has already gone to the board already and the NLRB has been exposed to the NHL tactics. This will go to the board but it will be the same as MLB, a per se ruling will be issued and the owners will have to start the season under the old CBA. So Bettman is flushing the season for nothing.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Quite simply this, since the NHL has failed at any turn to submit a counter proposal to the union they are in a position of bargaining in bad faith.

Your right, the NHL didn't counter the BS proposal from the NHLPA after they proposed "SIX" offers. Sorry if i fail to see your logic in "bargaining in bad faith" if anything the NHLPA is doing the bad bargaining by not even admitting the NHL has a financial problem and at least showing a try to help the situation. spin US labor laws all you want but Bettman has covered his a$$ and either they accept "cost certainty" or the NHLPA is toast...mark my words!!

 

[vanlady]

Your right, the NHL didn't counter the BS proposal from the NHLPA after they proposed "SIX" offers. Sorry if i fail to see your logic in "bargaining in bad faith" if anything the NHLPA is doing the bad bargaining by not even admitting the NHL has a financial problem and at least showing a try to help the situation. spin US labor laws all you want but Bettman has covered his a$$ and either they accept "cost certainty" or the NHLPA is toast...mark my words!!

Sorry but MLB tried exactly this in 94, I suggest you read the second link I provided, it will blow your delusions out the door.

 

[struckmatch]

Sorry but MLB tried exactly this in 94, I suggest you read the second link I provided, it will blow your delusions out the door.

The PA's proposal was a joke and we all know that. It did nothing to address the problems, and wasn't meant to start negotiations, it was meant to get PR points, and to make a proposal for the sake of making a proposal.

 

[vanlady]

The PA's proposal was a joke and we all know that. It did nothing to address the problems, and wasn't meant to start negotiations, it was meant to get PR points, and to make a proposal for the sake of making a proposal.

The PA proposal was based on the proposals the League proposed in 94. The proposal was given to the league in October of 2003. The league did not even submit a single proposal based on cost certainty until July of 2004. Nor have they ever in the last year submitted a counter proposal. This is a lockout boys and girls not a strike so the ownus of the negotiation falls to the owners not the players.

 

[garry1221]

The PA proposal was based on the proposals the League proposed in 94. The proposal was given to the league in October of 2003. The league did not even submit a single proposal based on cost certainty until July of 2004. Nor have they ever in the last year submitted a counter proposal. This is a lockout boys and girls not a strike so the ownus of the negotiation falls to the owners not the players.

if what you claim is true then i'd say the PA has catch up work to do. If it's true that the PA proposal was given to the league in '03 than the PA's got 5 more proposals to dish out and for the love of god can we see one proposal that actually doesn't make us laugh?

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

if what you claim is true then i'd say the PA has catch up work to do. If it's true that the PA proposal was given to the league in '03 than the PA's got 5 more proposals to dish out and for the love of god can we see one proposal that actually doesn't make us laugh?

I'm sure the PA could create 5 more proposals of the same basic premise as the last one with a few variations just like the league did. All the proposals made by the league came down to one thing and one thing only....salary cap.

The PA's proposal was a joke and we all know that. It did nothing to address the problems, and wasn't meant to start negotiations, it was meant to get PR points, and to make a proposal for the sake of making a proposal.

You may not think it was meant to start negotiations but the same could be said of the 5 proposals by the league. But let's say you have someone selling a widget (a fictional product)...they want $100 for it, you offer $50 for it...both the seller & buyer know that they won't get what they want but eventually they would probably settle on about $75. Both sides in this negotiations have started at their extreme end and now both sides need to start the compromising process. It just appears that the league has no desire to compromise at all...a cap is not guaranteed to fix the league's problems...there's no guarantee for that.

 

[degroat*]

OMG nobody has learned anything from '94. I listened to this same crap back then the only thing that has changed is the date and the names of the teams going bankrupt. Guess who those teams were in 94 Detroit, Colorado and Vancouver. Boy have things changed.

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who is claiming that the Avalanche were "going bankrupt" when they didn't even exit yet.

For those of you that think that the NFL is such a panacia for competetive balance ask yourself this, who has won the last 2 out of 3 Superbowls and is on target for a 3rd, and what team has not been in the playoffs in 9 years ooohhhh that would be the San Diego Chargers, the Blackhawks of the NFL. Caps do not improve competative balance, revenue sharing does

I'm sorry, but it's quite obvious that you don't really understand the concept of competitive balance. Competitive balance means that each and every team the same opportunity as every other team to be successful. It means that because New England has the right management and coaching that they can be successful for many years. It means that when a team such as San Diego makes poor decisions and has no clue how to develop a quarterback that they're going to struggle. It means that a team like the Packers can compete in a city where nearly 60% of the city's population fits into their football stadium. And it means that teams aren't at a monetary disadvantage.

The reason why the NFL succeeds at this is because a) they're payroll is limited and b) each and every team can reach that payroll ceiling.

 

[petrobruin]

Wake Up

What kind of moron thinks that forced mediocrity means high quality competitive balance?

IF there is a cap, players get increased freedom.


The Blues were far better when they won the Presidents Trophy in 2000 with a 35 million dollar payroll than they are now with a 60 million dollar one.

Fans who want caps to "punish" the talent-rich teams are exhibiting petty jealousy. Its unfortunate, really.

How does a cap NOT punish a well managed team? A team like Ottawa with several assembled stars and a reasonable budget would be dismantled under a capped system. Ottawa is one of the top 5 managed teams in the league from the AHL up to the top. Them, along with teams such as Tampa, Vancouver, Boston etc will be hurt.

ou are a Sens fan didin't your last owner declare the business in ottawa bankrupt.

Didn't that send any message


Petr

 

[vanlady]

if what you claim is true then i'd say the PA has catch up work to do. If it's true that the PA proposal was given to the league in '03 than the PA's got 5 more proposals to dish out and for the love of god can we see one proposal that actually doesn't make us laugh?

First the NHL has only delivered 6 "concepts" not porposals. As far as the NLRB and any provincial labor board are concerned the only porposal on the table is the one delivered by the NHLPA. A proposal for bargaining MUST contain all the subjects of bargaining. Oh and by the way I think there is some misconception that you can bargain to impasse on a single subject of bargaining, without bargaining the rest of the CBA. YOU CAN'T.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The reason why the NFL succeeds at this is because a) they're payroll is limited and b) each and every team can reach that payroll ceiling.

maybe, but a much bigger factor is that there is a huge pool of players to select from in the NFL. in the NHL, when a team drafts, they are happy to get 1 good player 5 years down the road. In the NFL draft, teams often select 2 or 3 impact players who are ready to play right away.

its pretty easy to maintain a decent team with that kind of talent supply. the NHL requires a more scarce athlete and therefore their leverage is higher.

seriously, would you know a difference if the NFL used replacement players ? nope and thats how the union was broken. there is a huge drop in talent if the NHL uses replacements, and thats why it will be much more diffuclt and risky to try and break that union.

dr

 

[degroat*]

maybe, but a much bigger factor is that there is a huge pool of players to select from in the NFL. in the NHL, when a team drafts, they are happy to get 1 good player 5 years down the road. In the NFL draft, teams often select 2 or 3 impact players who are ready to play right away.

its pretty easy to maintain a decent team with that kind of talent supply. the NHL requires a more scarce athlete and therefore their leverage is higher.

seriously, would you know a difference if the NFL used replacement players ? nope and thats how the union was broken. there is a huge drop in talent if the NHL uses replacements, and thats why it will be much more diffuclt and risky to try and break that union.

dr

You know how everyone once in a while you read a post, click the reply button, and then suddenly freeze up because you really have no clue how to repond to the nonsense you just read? Yea, that's just what happened to me.

You can't honestly believe the crap you just wrote, can you? You honestly believe that pool of players is a "much bigger factor" for the competitive balance than the salary cap and revenue sharing? How could you possibly believe that?

The competive balance in the NFL exists because the system in place succeeds in preventing one team from getting an excess of the best players in that player pool. Without the cap int he NFL, the New York Giants would field a team of Pro Bowlers.

No matter what the size of the player pool is a league must have a system in place where the majority of the great players are on a minority of teams. The NFL has accomplished this.

 

[degroat*]

First the NHL has only delivered 6 "concepts" not porposals. As far as the NLRB and any provincial labor board are concerned the only porposal on the table is the one delivered by the NHLPA. A proposal for bargaining MUST contain all the subjects of bargaining. Oh and by the way I think there is some misconception that you can bargain to impasse on a single subject of bargaining, without bargaining the rest of the CBA. YOU CAN'T.

What evidence do you have that the NHLPA offered a full CBA proposal?

 

[vanlady]

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who is claiming that the Avalanche were "going bankrupt" when they didn't even exit yet.



I'm sorry, but it's quite obvious that you don't really understand the concept of competitive balance. Competitive balance means that each and every team the same opportunity as every other team to be successful. It means that because New England has the right management and coaching that they can be successful for many years. It means that when a team such as San Diego makes poor decisions and has no clue how to develop a quarterback that they're going to struggle. It means that a team like the Packers can compete in a city where nearly 60% of the city's population fits into their football stadium. And it means that teams aren't at a monetary disadvantage.

The reason why the NFL succeeds at this is because a) they're payroll is limited and b) each and every team can reach that payroll ceiling.

For those of you who were probably to young to know the Nordique move to Colorado at the end of the lockout season. The team was sold before that. Essentially they were already the Av's before the end of the lockout.

As for the NFL, "payroll ceiling" I suggest you do your research, in 2003 13 teams were above the cap, in 2002 the Jets were 16 million over the cap. Sounds like they have good control of salaries huh. Oh and by the way the cap should have only gone to 77 million this year but they boosted it to 80.5 million just so they could get all the teams below the cap. And as far as all the teams having a completely level playing field I suggest you read what Gene Upshaw has to say about it.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/66-10282004-390989.html

 

[degroat*]

For those of you who were probably to young to know the Nordique move to Colorado at the end of the lockout season. The team was sold before that. Essentially they were already the Av's before the end of the lockout.

Actually the team was sold on July 1, 1995. That would be six months after the lockout ended. Nice try though.

As for the NFL, "payroll ceiling" I suggest you do your research, in 2003 13 teams were above the cap, in 2002 the Jets were 16 million over the cap. Sounds like they have good control of salaries huh. Oh and by the way the cap should have only gone to 77 million this year but they boosted it to 80.5 million just so they could get all the teams below the cap.

This sounds like a load of crap. You probably made it up just like you made up that the Nordiques were sold before the lockout. How about some evidence to actually back up one of your claims?

One of your claims that I know is a load is this nonsense about the cap getting "boosted just so they could get all the temas below the cap". The CBA stated that in 2004 the percentage of revenue increased to 64.75% from 64.25%. Here is a SOURCE for my claim.

So, we now know that you've lied both about the reason for the increase in the NFL's cap and about the date the Nordiques were sold.

And as far as all the teams having a completely level playing field I suggest you read what Gene Upshaw has to say about it.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/66-10282004-390989.html

Did you even read the link that you posted?

He's doing nothing more than trying to increase the money that the players get.

 

[fan mao rong]

Like has been put on here before, only mandatory subjects in collective bargaining need be negotiated, which can loosely be termed wages, terms , and conditions. Other items are optional subjects of bargaining which neither side is obligated to negotiate. Therefore, any items which some feel should be in the CBA but are not mandatory subjects need not be bargained over and thereby can not be implemented. As far as the NFL goes it is indeed a hard cap. Every year they get below the number by the required date. Since signing bonuses are averaged out over the life of the contract teams will be over for the upcoming year at a point and then get under. The cap was only exceeded illegally once, by the San Francisco 49'ers, for which they paid in fines and loss of draft choices. The only reason they raise the cap is because of an increase in League Revenues because the cap is based on a percentage of League Revenues.

 

[YellHockey*]

Actually the team was sold on July 1, 1995. That would be six months after the lockout ended. Nice try though.

What evidence do you have that that was the sale date?

 

[degroat*]

Everything I found on the subject said that COMSAT announced their interest in the team in May of 1995 and the sale was finalized in July.

On July 1st 1995, on Canada Day, the Québec Nordiques owners announced that the franchise had been sold to COMSAT Entertainment Group. The franchise was then relocated in Denver, Colorado and became the Avalanche. Thirteen years after the Colorado Rockies were relocated in New Jersey, NHL hockey was back in Denver.

July 1, 1995 - The Nordiques announced they were moving team to Denver, Colorado.

 

[Digger12]

Everything I found on the subject said that COMSAT announced their interest in the team in May of 1995 and the sale was finalized in July.

On July 1st 1995, on Canada Day, the Québec Nordiques owners announced that the franchise had been sold to COMSAT Entertainment Group. The franchise was then relocated in Denver, Colorado and became the Avalanche. Thirteen years after the Colorado Rockies were relocated in New Jersey, NHL hockey was back in Denver.

July 1, 1995 - The Nordiques announced they were moving team to Denver, Colorado.

Yep...Comsat Entertainment group officially expressed interest in purchasing the Nords on May 25/95, and acquired them on July 1. August 10/95 is when they became the Avs.

 

[vanlady]

Actually the team was sold on July 1, 1995. That would be six months after the lockout ended. Nice try though.



This sounds like a load of crap. You probably made it up just like you made up that the Nordiques were sold before the lockout. How about some evidence to actually back up one of your claims?

One of your claims that I know is a load is this nonsense about the cap getting "boosted just so they could get all the temas below the cap". The CBA stated that in 2004 the percentage of revenue increased to 64.75% from 64.25%. Here is a SOURCE for my claim.

So, we now know that you've lied both about the reason for the increase in the NFL's cap and about the date the Nordiques were sold.




Did you even read the link that you posted?

He's doing nothing more than trying to increase the money that the players get.

The Nordiques moved July 1, 1995. Buying hockey teams are not like going to Walmart and picking up your favorite munchies. If you were around when both Winnepeg and Quebec left you know that the sale of these teams began even before the lockout. As a matter of fact rumor has it that one of the first things that Bettman did when he became commisioner was to contact his buddies in Denver to see if they wanted a hockey team. That is right boys and girls the new owners of the Av's were also basketball owners.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/02/18/salary.cap.bump/

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx

On competative balance, I will suggest you read a few articles, stick with the top economists in pro sports Ries and Zimbalist, not some arm chair hack known as reporters.

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C909C317-99F4-4C1C-BF34-61492A8FD43A/0/0402.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-09-01-ten-changes-salary-cap_x.htm

And who says well managed http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...e.League.All.At.Once-540634.shtml?page=1teams have a chance to flourish under a cap




I suggest you read these links they make a fool of you.

 

[vanlady]

Everything I found on the subject said that COMSAT announced their interest in the team in May of 1995 and the sale was finalized in July.

On July 1st 1995, on Canada Day, the Québec Nordiques owners announced that the franchise had been sold to COMSAT Entertainment Group. The franchise was then relocated in Denver, Colorado and became the Avalanche. Thirteen years after the Colorado Rockies were relocated in New Jersey, NHL hockey was back in Denver.

July 1, 1995 - The Nordiques announced they were moving team to Denver, Colorado.

OK very slowly. In Vancouver we have known who is buying our team for over a year, but the expression of interest in the team only became formal at the end of August. How does this relate, anyone who was a hockey fan in 92 forward knew that both the Nordique and Jets were leaving. When the Jets left in 93, everyone knew the Nordique were going to Colorado. Simple bargaining gentleman, before a formal proposal can be submitted there is a very lenghthy discovery process that must be followed, including the formal audit by the purchaser, this is done BEFORE the expression of interest not after. Vancouver has been in these discussions for over a year.

 

[SENSible1*]

The Nordiques moved July 1, 1995. Buying hockey teams are not like going to Walmart and picking up your favorite munchies. If you were around when both Winnepeg and Quebec left you know that the sale of these teams began even before the lockout. As a matter of fact rumor has it that one of the first things that Bettman did when he became commisioner was to contact his buddies in Denver to see if they wanted a hockey team. That is right boys and girls the new owners of the Av's were also basketball owners.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/02/18/salary.cap.bump/

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx

On competative balance, I will suggest you read a few articles, stick with the top economists in pro sports Ries and Zimbalist, not some arm chair hack known as reporters.

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C909C317-99F4-4C1C-BF34-61492A8FD43A/0/0402.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-09-01-ten-changes-salary-cap_x.htm

And who says well managed http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...e.League.All.At.Once-540634.shtml?page=1teams have a chance to flourish under a cap




I suggest you read these links they make a fool of you.

Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE article before you make a fool of yourself.

How can the league reward teams for good drafts without creating an opportunity for an evil empire such as the Yankees?

Simple.

Despite the bashing of it, the salary cap is an effective rule when utilized properly. So the NFL should keep the cap, but this time give percentage relief for drafted players. For example, if a guy has been drafted by a team, only 90 percent of his salary should count towards the cap. If he stays for three years, his next salary will count for 80 percent or 85 percent of the cap.

As the years go on, the percentage keeps going down, so that players like Emmitt Smith have an opportunity to finish their career with their original team, without fear of a great cap hit. This system would separate the stingy and high-paying owners from each other, without creating a great disparity amongst teams, as in baseball. In addition, general managers who draft well will not be hurt if the owner decides to pay a little more then the cap allows.

In the end, the better managed teams will benefit and the poorly managed will fail.

 

[dawgbone]

Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE article before you make a fool of yourself.

Blasphemy!

Telling someone to actually read something that contradicts what they say... even if they use it as "proof".

 

[degroat*]

The Nordiques moved July 1, 1995. Buying hockey teams are not like going to Walmart and picking up your favorite munchies. If you were around when both Winnepeg and Quebec left you know that the sale of these teams began even before the lockout. As a matter of fact rumor has it that one of the first things that Bettman did when he became commisioner was to contact his buddies in Denver to see if they wanted a hockey team. That is right boys and girls the new owners of the Av's were also basketball owners.

The Comsat Entertainment group announced their interest in purchasing the Nordiques on May 25, 1995.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/02/18/salary.cap.bump/

http://www.nflpa.org/Media/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Extension+Features

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx

I'm not quite sure what your point is. I'm guessing that you gave me this link to see that certain teams were over the cap, but I'm not sure why this information is relevent. Teams are allowed to go over the cap when incentive-based bonuses were not achieved in previos years. If you had actually done the research that you accused me of not doing, you would know this.

On competative balance, I will suggest you read a few articles, stick with the top economists in pro sports Ries and Zimbalist, not some arm chair hack known as reporters.

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C909C317-99F4-4C1C-BF34-61492A8FD43A/0/0402.pdf

Do you even understand what that report is saying? What that is saying is that after the CBA the NFL was less 'mediocre', meaning that in any given year that there were MORE teams that were very good and that there were MORE teams that were very bad.

First of all, thank you for posting evidence that a cap doesn't make a league mediocre.

Secondly, that study does nothing to measure the competive balance over a number of years, which is exactly what kind of competitive balance that we're talking about here.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-09-01-ten-changes-salary-cap_x.htm

I'm not sure why this article is relevent to the discussion at hand.

And who says well managed http://www.dailytexanonline.com/new...e.League.All.At.Once-540634.shtml?page=1teams have a chance to flourish under a cap

Interesting... a column by "some arm chair hack known as [a] reporter".

I suggest you read these links they make a fool of you.

:lol