Brian Burke's CBA

[RangerBoy]

He has two proposals.

1. A meaningful luxury tax of .75 cents on the dollar and have it start at a payroll of $38 million. The union has proposed a 20 percent tax starting at $40 million and it won't have any deterring effect on spending.

2. Maximize entry-level system bonuses at $300,000. If a player comes in and tears it up as a rookie, he can make some meaningful money - but not the millions and millions that so many young players have made. Pay that to the veterans.

3. Amend the arbitration system. Change it so that a player or a team can file, and only once every three years. If a two-year deal is awarded, they can only do it every four years. Go to a high-low system that's fair, keep the walk-away/walk-back option, but amend the arbitration.

4. Reduce the regular season schedule to 72 games. The league and the players play too many games - a fact that has been lost in the shuffle. In my mind, this is a meaningful thing for our fans that have been suffering through this. We play too many games, and the product suffers as a result.

5. Move buyouts to .50 cents on the dollar. Right now, it's either .33 cents or .66 cents. Make it simple at .50 cents.

6. Make qualifying offers at 75 percent. The union's proposal to re-tool it is meaningless in my opinion.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=110994

Click to read more...

 

[Carl Spackler]

To me the most interesting thing about Burke's proposal is the fact that a luxury tax is included. Considering that Burke is not that far removed from being part of management this seems to indicate to me that the owners would be willing to accept a luxury tax if the terms were severe enough.

 

[Jazz]

To me the most interesting thing about Burke's proposal is the fact that a luxury tax is included. Considering that Burke is not that far removed from being part of management this seems to indicate to me that the owners would be willing to accept a luxury tax if the terms were severe enough.

Burke has stated numerous times that linkage is more important than whether we have a cap or a tax.

 

[thinkwild]

Well its interesting in that he is proposing linkage without a hard cap. He didnt quite state exactly how that would work. OR is he saying that after 2 years, if karmanos and jacobs dont try to sabotage the agreement by making some ridiculous decisions, then they will carry on for 8 more years? Or is it putting the onus on the PA to manage overall league payroll so it rises at a defined rate? Surely they would this for 2 years if the next 8 they no longer have to?

One good thing about the players 24% proposed rollback is that it does make it easier to move to a 72 game schedule.

I think overall, what Burke is proposing is the way it should be negotiated. And it shows even he doesnt want or need a cap,.

Buyouts at 50% is a good way to get around guaranteed contracts I guess.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

In the past the players would certainly have agreed to a shorter season, but now that salaries are going to be linked directly to revenues, one way or another, I don't think it is something that they could accept.

In the past games meanst less work for the same salary. Now, sacraficing 10 games off of a season that already doesn't create enough revenues for players to earn what they earn now is not likely something they are going to be fond of.

 

[thinkwild]

Well I see the logic, but I dont think players would of offered a 24% rollback if that was true. I think many of the players would like to reduce the schedule to 72 games and are willing to take less money for it. I dont think their principle on this is as greed related as you make it sound

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Well that 24% rollback was based on revenue in an 82 game season though. If you change the games in the season you change the revenue, thus the percent the players would have to roll back from their current salaries would be even greater. There are a lot of ways in which a 72-game season would help the game, but now that salaries are tied to revenues, something the players are going to have to give up a lot in order to live under, I don't see them giving up even more so they could shorten the season.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

His luxury tax had linkage.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

His luxury tax had linkage.

Exactly my point. So why, after the players agree to that, if they ever do, would they then agree to a shorter season which would take even more revenues off the table for them?

 

[thinkwild]

Because they want one and its good for them and the game? And they arent worried that it will cost them money? Your point makes sense, but 12% less games with a 24% rollback could work out good.

But the more important point here is Burkes proposal. How do you get linkage without the cap? How will this work. This seems a key point that can lead to a compromise.

 

[me2]

Well its interesting in that he is proposing linkage without a hard cap. He didnt quite state exactly how that would work. OR is he saying that after 2 years, if karmanos and jacobs dont try to sabotage the agreement by making some ridiculous decisions, then they will carry on for 8 more years? Or is it putting the onus on the PA to manage overall league payroll so it rises at a defined rate? Surely they would this for 2 years if the next 8 they no longer have to?

Here is Burke's earlier concept, its a little more fleshed out

http://www.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2004/09/14/Sports/burke040914.html

I'd be interested to know if the new offer is 75c/$1 or whether is scales up from that.

6. Set overage fees at:

* 1st million = $0.50 on the dollar
* 2nd million = $1 per dollar
* 3rd million = $2 per dollar
* 4th million = $3 per dollar
* 5th million or more = $5 per dollar

Burke characterized the union's luxury tax proposal akin to "changing a side-view mirror on a bus that's going off a cliff."

"It will have absolutely no impact on spending. This is a realistic, ramped up tax that should have an effect on what clubs spend."

 

[EventHorizon]

Brian Burke's proposals are well thought out, interesting, seem to take both sides into consideration and actually seem like they might work.


So it's pretty much a guarantee that the NHL and NHLPA won't give it a second (or first for that matter) look.

 

[LordHelmet]

How do you get linkage without the cap?

Easy - set your thresholds as percentages rather than dollar values..

Using easy numbers: Say total League revenue = 200 million / 30 teams = 66MM per team..

First threshold is at 50% ($33MM)
Second threshold is at 55% ($36.3MM)
Third threshold is at 57% ($37.6MM)
Fourth threshold is at 59% ($38.9MM)

I'm just throwing out percentages, but that's the general idea... And obviously, the rates get more severe the higher up you go.

Also, in addition to monetary penalties, penalize the team's position(s) in the draft as they hit each threshold.. If you're at the first threshold, your highest pick (whether it's yours or you traded for it) on draft day moves down by 5 positions. If you're at the second threshold, it drops 10 positions. At the third, it moves down 25 positions. At the fourth, your highest pick in each of the next two drafts moves down 30 positions..

This arrangement would give management some fan support if they have to let a high-priced player walk. It's easy for fans to say "just pay the money!" but fans won't necessarily say that if it hurts the team's future..

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Because they want one and its good for them and the game? And they arent worried that it will cost them money? Your point makes sense, but 12% less games with a 24% rollback could work out good.

But the more important point here is Burkes proposal. How do you get linkage without the cap? How will this work. This seems a key point that can lead to a compromise.

They aren't worried that it will cost them money? First of all, who wouldn't be opposed to something if it were going to cost them money and second of all if the players aren't concerned about money than why exactly are we in this mess? To say that neither sides cares about money and would put their on ice needs and the improvement of the game ahead of money is nice to think about, but unfortunetly it is not true. If the PA ever gets bargained down and agrees to cost certainty through a linkage of revenue-salary, they certainly aren't going to allow that revenue figure to go any lower than it already is.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Well its interesting in that he is proposing linkage without a hard cap. He didnt quite state exactly how that would work. OR is he saying that after 2 years, if karmanos and jacobs dont try to sabotage the agreement by making some ridiculous decisions, then they will carry on for 8 more years? Or is it putting the onus on the PA to manage overall league payroll so it rises at a defined rate? Surely they would this for 2 years if the next 8 they no longer have to?

One good thing about the players 24% proposed rollback is that it does make it easier to move to a 72 game schedule.

I think overall, what Burke is proposing is the way it should be negotiated. And it shows even he doesnt want or need a cap,.

Buyouts at 50% is a good way to get around guaranteed contracts I guess.

linkage without a hard cap would seem contrary to everything Bettman has said so far.
If Burke's offer got hockey started, I'd be all for it.
His solution demands about the same from the PA as mine have, and yet people on these boards think I'm the son of Goodenow.
Just shows how ridiculous SOME of the pro-owner people have been.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Brian Burke's proposals are well thought out, interesting, seem to take both sides into consideration and actually seem like they might work.


So it's pretty much a guarantee that the NHL and NHLPA won't give it a second (or first for that matter) look.

i know what you mean ...

which side do you think has better reason (based on their positions) to reject burke's proposal ?

considering the source of the proposal isnt some fan page nor an outsider. this is the opinion of most likely the single most experianced, informed and connected person who is not directly associated with either side.

if both sides like it .. why not try it ?
if both sides dont like it ... maybe they should reconsider this as a reasonable compromise for both parties. if both dont like it, its because they feel the other side got too much. its logical than to think both sides got too much.

so, which side rejects this proposal ?

dr

 

[Raimo Sillanpää]

I feel sorry for Rookies having to take it on the chin while overpayed stars get to keep their multi-million dollar salaries virtually untouched.

It's less of a less for Yashin to earn $6million instead of $10 million that it's for a rookie to get a basic wage of $300k instead of $800k.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

I feel sorry for Rookies having to take it on the chin while overpayed stars get to keep their multi-million dollar salaries virtually untouched.

It's less of a less for Yashin to earn $6million instead of $10 million that it's for a rookie to get a basic wage of $300k instead of $800k.

That's bonuses, not salary.

I actually have little problem with a rookie cap. Like any other vocational path, a starting wage and probation period is emminently understandable from an employer's standpoint.