February proposal vs. current speculated deal - question

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Vomiting Kermit*, Jul 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. First off, I apologize if there's another thread about this.

    I am confused as to which deal is better for the players... I am pro-owner, but that really has nothing to do with this question.

    I just saw Glenn Healy on TV talking about how much better the current deal is for the players than the one that was offered by the NHL in February; I found that odd because Jeremy Roenick said the February proposal "beats the ****" out of the one that the players are going to sign in the next few days.

    Since Healy is a massive homer and his entire argument has changed since the beginning of the lockout, I thought I would ask here for an answer.

    Is the speculated deal better for the players than the NHL's 'final' offer from February?

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. SerbianEagle

    SerbianEagle Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Home Page:
    From all that I've read I can't see how it is? Wasn't the rumored cap in that one 45M, while this one is 36-38? Thats a 7-9M difference there. Unless he counts the free parking stuff, then maybe?
     
  3. FlyerFan

    FlyerFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you just looked at only the deals themselves then both deals suck for the players, just one deal will suck less than the other. However, the last gasp February season saving deal was vastly superior for the players in the sense that they would be paid for the 04-05 season instead of losing it.
     
  4. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,770
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    The problem with that argument is that you assume that the cap number is the sole indication of what the deal means for the players. If arbitration and qualifying offers are close to the Dec 9 proposal, than it's better in those aspects than it was in February. If there is no luxury tax, like we've been hearing and there is a salary floor at 22-24 million, that's better for the players than the one in February too.

    Look, I'm one of the staunchest PA supporters on this board. In no way am I declaring this anything but a complete loss for the NHLPA. However, when held up to the February deal the owners had on the table and only that deal, there is a very large chance that this deal will be better. We won't really know until the particulars of the deal are released.
     
  5. SerbianEagle

    SerbianEagle Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Home Page:
    The cap was the only thing that was obvious to me so I used that, but whatever happens. It looks like the playing field will be more leveled, and I don't mind at all if the players managed to get something for the rookies and some other benefits.
     
  6. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,770
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    LOL, the rookies are getting screwed just as hard, if not harder than the rest of the PA.
     
  7. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    Here is all you need to know. Healy is a schill for the PA and does not want to admit he is wrong so he is probably lying and saying this deal is better. Thats my take anyway.
     
  8. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,770
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    You are a schill for the owners and do not want to admit you are wrong, so you are probably just making it up as you go. That's my take anyway.
     
  9. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a better deal for the players, hands down. It's more that just dollars and cents and a cap. It's about the way the deal is structured. It's about how revenues are determined, and how teams report it. It's about arbitration, qualifying offers, minimum salaries, rookie contracts and buy outs. It's a lot more than just a cap number. Once anyone with half a brain reads beyond the cap number they will see that in the long run, this deal is better than the February deal.
     
  10. London Knights

    London Knights Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The one interesting thing that I will never get is how people will blame either side for not getting a deal done in February and saving the season...what season. We have seen how much crap they had to actually go through to get a deal done. They have been going 16 hour days for a month and still have no deal. A last minute thrown together proposal was going to do this?

    I am much more satisified, as should the players, in the fact that this is an actual joint proposal. The players are obviously going to lose the CBA negotiation battle, but there are going to be many more stabilizing additions that go to their benefit aswell.
     
  11. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,932
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    Pro-Owner Zombies

    Here they come. Break out the shotguns.
     
  12. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    First of all:

    1. Not the Feb 2 offer, which had a floor of 29.8 mil + benefits and a cap of $39 mil

    2. I have been playing along with this QO bull**** too long. QO's are essentially irrelevant. They are not a starting point for negotiations. Except for the weaker players who do not drive salaries anyway, they are meaningless.

    In no way is the current deal "better" for playrs.
     
  13. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When this deal is done and you compare all the aspects of the 2, this deal will be better. We won't know for sure until 6 years from now...in 95 everyone thought the PA got killed with the CBA and it ended up the other way around. There are results that we can't even predict, that we won't even understand until they happen. But if you are simply comparing the 2 deals point by point, this deal is better.

    The other thing is, there have been a lot of different reports. Some have reported a cap of $39.5M...I don't think it's true but if it is, than the cap number really doesn't matter because it's basically the same as the February cap even in the first year.
     
  14. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    This is a general comment... If the players are guaranteed a portion of the revenues, then what does it matter what the floor and the cap is for the players? For the owners, they'll want a shorter range to promote better competition, but for the players I don't see why they should care. Regardless of how much teams really spend, they'll receive as a collectivity "x%" of revenues.

    As well, I find it funny that people compare a non-negociated offer to the negociated deal. If you think there was no room for negociations on the february offer you're kidding yourself. As well, another big difference which doesn't get enough talk is the hurt and damage the players have done over their own revenues between the two offers. They lost money this year and potentially in the next few as well (as revenues might have been higher in the next few seasons if this had been settled back in february).

    However, it's normal for the PA shills to claim "victory" as they're trying to save face. That's always what you do after a deal is done, you try to rationalize how you got to that deal.
     
  15. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Who cares who won or lost . . . I am happy . . . beyond happy . . .with what I have seen of the reported details and am ecstatic that this lockout final seems to be coming to an end.

    If those of you who supported the players in this want to declare victory have at it . . . sure, pop the bubbly, throw me a brew, the players won, I graciously admit defeat for the side that I supported in this, the owners. Now lets get this party started.
     
  16. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because your comparing it to another deal with a cap? I guess you could compare %'s, but who really knows what % the players would have gotten with the $42.5M offer?
     
  17. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    And ... :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  18. zeke

    zeke #freeVladdy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    45,774
    Likes Received:
    4,149
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Healy is a fool.

    The major points of the current proposed deal are either the same or worse than the major points of the Feb.2 offer.

    There are minor improvements on secondary issues....most of which could have been negotiated at the time, many of which were already given up by the NHL by the time the cancellation/non-cancellation fiasco happened.

    Here's how it breaks down:

    http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html


    This is the Linkage number.

    On Feb.2 the offer was 53-55%, and now it seems they're saying 54%...which might be just semantics.

    Either way, it's the same.

    Also the same is the 15% escrow number.


    1) Payroll Cap: $40.0-$42.2 mil

    2) Payroll Floor: $29.8-$32.0 mil

    3) Revenue Sharing: enough to ensure all teams can spend the floor.

    The current rumoured proposal has the floor at around $24 mil, and the cap around $38 mil, so, despite what Healy yells about, this is clearly worse for the players now than it was then.


    They didn't see a reason for it, but they said they'd negotiate a Tax within the framework of the cap if the NHLPA really wanted it.

    So if the players "get" this in the current deal, it was already there.


    Healy tried to play this off as if it was something new that the NHLPA gained, but it was already in there in february.

    healy lied.




    Now, there are some areas where the NHLPA may have made small gains....but much of these gains had already been gained by the NHLPA before the season was cancelled.

    It looks like the Rookie Cap number is the same now as it was then ($850k).

    I wouldn't be surprised to see that they were only for 3 years instead of 4, so the players may gain a bit here. Then again, maybe they don't get it down to 3 years. I haven't heard anything about that yet.


    I believe that the current rumours indicate that all qualifying offers will be at 100%....so the NHLPA seems to have been able to "win" here by getting rid of the 75% qualifying offers. Not sure if this is actually the case. though.

    Besides, if I remember correctly, the owners had already given up asking for the 75% qualifying offers before the season was cancelled.


    I haven't heard anything about salary arbitration in the new proposed agreement.

    Does this mean that they've already done the tradeoff indicated there, whereby UFA age gets reduced to age 28, with no salary abitration at all?

    Not sure.


    It seems as if the Free Agency age will be reduced not only to 30, but also by another year each of the two years after that, down to age 28.

    This could be a gain for the NHLPA....unless they sacrificed salary arbitration to get it, which is what the NHL offered in february.


    It seems as if the NHLPA has gained 100k in the minimum contracts, from $300k to $400 k.

    I have heard nothing about the 3-year max, although I may have heard something about a 5-year max.

    This could be a gain for the NHLPA here.





    There were also, however, two key parts of the deal which were of great benefit to the players, which I haven't heard of in the new deal, which they may have lost:

    They offered the union the right to open up the deal in 4 years.

    Not sure if this is still on the table.


    This was a key offer on the part of the NHL - they offered to split all their profits over a nominal amount 50/50 with the players.

    I do not know if this is still on the table.





    In short, Healy is lying.

    Every single concrete rumour we have heard about the current deal is the same or worse than it was in the Feb.2 offer.
     
  19. coppernblue

    coppernblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wow u just ripped apart all of healys arguement with cold hard facts
    gotta say thats impressive
     
  20. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,770
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    zeke:

    No no no no no. When people refer to the deal in February, they're referring to the final deal that was on the table in February before the season was cancelled. That's February 16th, not February 2nd. The deal did not include linkage and had a $42.5m hard cap.

    And besides, I'm going to pick your argument apart here anyway

    1) The floating range you see listed there was based on 04/05 payrolls, which are bound to go drastically down with 04/05 contracts expiring and/or the rumored buyout period. Since the floor was calculated by averaging the 10 lowest payrolls right underneath the mean of the league, that number is no longer applicable and in addition, the floor would have done straight through the floor in the first off-season. The mean goes down, the averages go down and the payrolls goes down. Having a fixed floor % eliminates those kinds of discrepancies and ensures that the payrolls don't fall through the floor.

    2) Your interperetation of the NHL's stance on luxury tax completely buys the spin. This was no different than "oh, the rollback doesn't fix anything, but we'll take it anyway." If there truly is no luxury tax, it's better for the Union. Period.

    3) Rumors are that the ELS system is going to have up to $3m in bonuses. While they aren't practically automatic like the bonuses in the last CBA ended up being, that's still $2.75m more than the league was offering on February 2nd. And all the rumors I've seen have that at 3 years.

    4) Salary arbitration and qualifying offers are said to be based on the NHLPA's December 9th proposal. Both are heavily in favor on the PA's side if this is the case.

    5) Those last two you mentioned never come out except in full-text of proposals anyway, so you're just spinning that.
     
  21. zeke

    zeke #freeVladdy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    45,774
    Likes Received:
    4,149
    Trophy Points:
    196
    Are you really trying to argue that the deal the NHL was offering got WORSE from Feb.2 to Feb.16?

    The truth is that the NHL made adjustments to specific NHLPA complaints - they took away linkage only because the NHLPA WAS ADAMANT THAT IT WOULD NEVER ACCEPT LINKAGE!!

    The NHL took out linkage because that's what the NHLPA said it wanted.

    That last-ditch effort was the only offer the NHL ever made, from the very beginning, that didn't include linkage.

    You can't possibly argue that the NHLPA has now won a victory by getting linkage back in the deal.


    This is exactly the point - both the proposal then and the proposal now are based around a 54% linkage.

    The difference is that now, this means much less money for the players than it did then.

    Remember, the NHL in their Dec.16th counterproposal included a fixed floor % (1/30th of 51%).

    What?

    The NHL explicitly said it wanted no luxury tax.

    The NHLPA insisted that it wanted luxury tax.

    The NHL, in this offered, said that if the NHLPA wanted a luxury tax within the cap system, they would negotiate it.

    Why does the NHLPA want a luxury tax? Because it gives the poorer teams more money to spend.

    Could be.

    That's not what I've heard, but perhaps.

    Today's LA Times report said it would be baseball-style arbitration, which is a step down from the NHLPA's Dec.9th proposal.


     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2005
  22. zeke

    zeke #freeVladdy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    45,774
    Likes Received:
    4,149
    Trophy Points:
    196
    So the newest rumours now have these two key factors added in:


    1) Individual Player Cap of 20% of the Team Payroll Cap. (approx. $7.5m)
    2) Baseball Style Arbitration
     
  23. gobuds

    gobuds Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    you are making a huge assumption as is healey, that the players couldn't have gotten these things in February. It wasn't a take it or leave it as the moron ex-goalie suggests- it was the framework- that is why the players have lost.
     
  24. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    16,977
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    zeke...all I can say is :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

    But be warned you'll have to repeat that another 15,000 times or so before some will take notice.

    Amazing how the offer gets better with the linkage that was always offered but taken off the table ONCE to essentially call Goodenow's bluff after he fumbled and accepted a cap and then fumbled again by firing back a counter with had one-way linkage (blinked on the cap and blinked on linkage in a matter of days). IT's almost as if what the NHL was offering all along was the framework of a very good deal for both sides though only one side realized it until 6 weeks ago.
     
  25. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. It got worse from early February until the 16th, but because of the PA's stance it got better legally.

    They didn't "win a victory" by getting linkage back in the deal because they didn't have to do anything to get it there, the NHL wanted it anyway. But if you consider how low the unlinked cap was going to be, it then makes sense to take linkage. The cap is almost the same to start and now it can increase as revenues increase.

    The PA insisted it wanted a luxury tax way back when, before a restrictive cap was on the table and before they accepted the NHL's demands for linkage. The NHL said it didn't want a luxury tax, because it was being proposed by the PA as an alternative to a cap.

    You have to realize that as the offers change so do the stances of the 2 sides. The PA doesn't want a luxury tax if there is going to be a restrictive cap anyway. The only reason they would ever want it would be to give the poorer teams some more money, but it looks like they have taken care of that by getting the owners to agree to share more revenues.

    No sane person is coming on here and saying the PA won the fight, but if you compare the $42.5M offer with the deal today, I don't see how you can say it got worse. Don't compare the stances of each side at the time because it's obvious one side was wrong, as their strategy didn't work. At the time they realized it didn't work it did make more sense to give in to the other sides demands because it would result in a better deal. NOT a win in the CBA negotiations, but a better deal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"