Boston Globe:NHLPA OFFER

[J-D]

The media business is a funny business and that's not funny ha ha so much as funny peculiar. Sometimes it's funny ha ha, but more often than not it's funny peculiar.

That post was funny ha ha. The NHLPA proposal, if the reported numbers are correct, will be shot down in a second.

 

[txpd]

That post was funny ha ha. The NHLPA proposal, if the reported numbers are correct, will be shot down in a second.

I beg to differ. It will not be shot down as in rejected. It will be basis for negotiation. For instance the NHL might take the cap number if the franchise player is removed or accept the franchise player if the cap is lowered. they might accept both in with some modification if the floor is lowered and if the floor and the cap number are lowered the right way, the nhl might accept the free agency changes.

if the pa comes back with something like is described, it will not be agreed to by the league, but IMO it would be negotiated on all the way.

 

[txpd]

What about the salary rollback, major issue if it is included or not.

salary rollback is no longer an issue. with SO many NHL players contracts expired or expiring in july and with most of the rest expiring after next season, the rollback really has only marginal effect anymore as it only effects current contracts.

 

[HF2002]

I'm curious...

..unless they specifically outline how the franchise player tag gets awarded, can the teams can use this to their advantage?

ie Ottawa pays Mike Fisher more than he's really worth but certainly less than what they know they'll have to pay, say, Spezza. Fisher's "all heart and a leader" can be a "determining factor" and they give him the franchise player tag. Then they tell Spezza at his next contract negotiations that he can't get the money he wants because the Sens have to work within the cap restrictions and Spezza can't go anywhere because he's still too young.

Ottawa overpays and exempts Fisher at $2 million a season for 4 years = $8 million

Ottawa underpays Spezza that counts toward the cap at $3 million per season for 4 years = $12 million

Total: $20 million

VS

Fisher at his worth: approx $1 million a season for 4 years = $4 million

Spezza with his exempted salary: approx $5 million for 5 years = $25 million

Total: $29 million

Wouldn't teams look at the exemption as something just as easily favourable to them?

Does the exempted salary have to have a minimum amount for the players to think it's worthwhile to fight for?

 

[mooseOAK*]

salary rollback is no longer an issue. with SO many NHL players contracts expired or expiring in july and with most of the rest expiring after next season, the rollback really has only marginal effect anymore as it only effects current contracts.

They are reference points for future arbitration cases, though.

 

[jcpenny]

I'm curious...

..unless they specifically outline how the franchise player tag gets awarded, can the teams can use this to their advantage?

ie Ottawa pays Mike Fisher more than he's really worth but certainly less than what they know they'll have to pay, say, Spezza. Fisher's "all heart and a leader" can be a "determining factor" and they give him the franchise player tag. Then they tell Spezza at his next contract negotiations that he can't get the money he wants because the Sens have to work within the cap restrictions and Spezza can't go anywhere because he's still too young.

Ottawa overpays and exempts Fisher at $2 million a season for 4 years = $8 million

Ottawa underpays Spezza that counts toward the cap at $3 million per season for 4 years = $12 million

Total: $20 million

VS

Fisher at his worth: approx $1 million a season for 4 years = $4 million

Spezza with his exempted salary: approx $5 million for 5 years = $25 million

Total: $29 million

Wouldn't teams look at the exemption as something just as easily favourable to them?

Does the exempted salary have to have a minimum amount for the players to think it's worthwhile to fight for?

This is exactly what i think, the exemption can be used to their advantage u can do anything you want with it. I like that rule.

 

[RangerBoy]

Why would the NHL just reject the rumored NHLPA proposal reported in the Boston Globe?It's a salary cap of $42 million($39.8 million plus $2.2 million in benefits).The NHL offered $42.5 million which did not include the $2.2 million in benefits

If the big market NHL teams agreed to share their revenue,the $34 million floor is realistic

Teams would pay a 50% tax on the franchise player

 

[R0CKET]

They are reference points for future arbitration cases, though.

I disagree.

Yes they would have had merit to a players value had the game not been shut down, but with large loss of revenue the NHL's going to see it would be pure fantasy to assume any team could pay a player even 80% of what they once did after the game sustains a 25-40% loss of revenues.

I think this is the key point being lost by both right about now.

Even if the owners win...they lost, and the players have been destined to be a loser since November, so they never really had anything to win.

The time value of the viability of this league has now surpassed the issue of who's numbers will see victory.

Its called an issue being overtaken by events.

 

[SharkGirl27]

As someone said in a previous post, I don't think that there is a chance the NHL outright rejects this proposal, if it were real, nor do I think there is a chance they would outright accept it, but it is a decent starting point for negotiations. The PA is obviously not presenting the best offer, do they really think the owners will go for a ufa age of 27? Probably not, but 29 yeah, that would probably be a good age for both sides. The entry level contracts sounds pretty good to me, the floor of the cap is pretty high, but they have to start somehwere on all of the issues, and what ever the offer may be its better than the two sides not doing anything other than the players decideing whether or not to play in the WHA tourney for a whopping $20,000 and the owners trying to figure out how to get their hands on Crosby.

 

[chiavsfan]

Considering that everyone, Sportsnet, TSN etc....said that there is no PA "proposal" coming. Then I would expect this isn't true

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I've been considering this phantom proposal and if I were with the NHL I was accept this deal on the following condition. That it is agreed that the terms of the proposal are based on 2003-04 revenues and that the NHLPA acknowledges that the revenues of 2005-06 are an unknown and are prepared to adjust the proposal to reflect the revenues of the new marketplace, as defined by a three company independent audit of league revenues. If the NHLPA is willing to do this then the league will allow the NHLPA to ask for a second audit at some point in the future to readjust the figures in the proposal for the remaining lifespan of the agreed to CBA.

In other words, the first year of the deal is run under the terms the players have proposed. Revenues are then auditted and the deal adjusted, up or down, to align with the change in revenues. At any time during the remainder of the CBA the PA can ask for a second audit and adjustment according to revenues.

Would this be sufficient for the PA?

 

[shakes]

Considering that everyone, Sportsnet, TSN etc....said that there is no PA "proposal" coming. Then I would expect this isn't true

Regardless if that is true, how people can say that this proposal would be "rejected in seconds" is just amazing. If this was indeed the proposal and the NHL just rejected it out of hand, without even bothering to negotiate it, then you can bet it would badly hurt their cause in front of the NLRB. That "proposal" is fair.. UFA and minimum salary aside.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Regardless if that is true, how people can say that this proposal would be "rejected in seconds" is just amazing. If this was indeed the proposal and the NHL just rejected it out of hand, without even bothering to negotiate it, then you can bet it would badly hurt their cause in front of the NLRB. That "proposal" is fair.. UFA and minimum salary aside.

Fair? Depends on who you talk with. A solid framework that both sides can agree to work from in the formulation of a deal is a better term. As a framework it looks okay and is something to negotitiate from. Lots of work to do, but something to base that work on.

 

[Jamie]

This is exactly what i think, the exemption can be used to their advantage u can do anything you want with it. I like that rule.

You don't think most team's will use the franchise player bit to put them over the top? ie, spending 10 million on someone like Pronger... Of course that's what the top teams do, they have the money, and the other team's are doing it, so of course they'll have to as well to stay competitive.

 

[HF2002]

You don't think most team's will use the franchise player bit to put them over the top? ie, spending 10 million on someone like Pronger... Of course that's what the top teams do, they have the money, and the other team's are doing it, so of course they'll have to as well to stay competitive.

That's true, but they can only do it with one player. If the Rangers want to outspend another team on 1 player it's not that much of an advantage. And then the rest of the team has stay under the same cap that everyone else has to stay under.

It's the only leftover advantage that the large market teams will get and probably deserve. If the franchise player exemption doesn't make it to the final CBA (whenever that is) I'm not about to cry foul, but if it's there, I don't think it's going to create as many financial problems as some are suggesting here. There can be certain parameters built in to keep it under control and tie up the loopholes that might crop up.

 

[Vagabond]

That's true, but they can only do it with one player. If the Rangers want to outspend another team on 1 player it's not that much of an advantage. And then the rest of the team has stay under the same cap that everyone else has to stay under.

It's the only leftover advantage that the large market teams will get and probably deserve. If the franchise player exemption doesn't make it to the final CBA (whenever that is) I'm not about to cry foul, but if it's there, I don't think it's going to create as many financial problems as some are suggesting here. There can be certain parameters built in to keep it under control and tie up the loopholes that might crop up.

^I agree, it's only one player over the cap.. and I think a deal will get done after seeing this proposal from the PA before the next season begins. I'm not saying it's going to be this proposal, but.. it's for once.. pointing the right direction.