Here's the whole NHL proposal

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Lowering the age for UFAs is something the players would greatly benefit from. Putting it out there (even if they are only lowering it by a year in this offer) shows that it is a negotiable item.

I expect this is the biggest single item the owners can offer the players to get what they wanted in cost certainty. The players will counter with a lower age. If they agree to cost certainty, they will walk away with a lower UFA age.

Please explain how lowering the UFA age helps the players if there is a salary cap?

A salary cap means that the size of the pie stays the same.
So lowering the UFA age just changes the ages of the players who get the bigger pieces of the pie.

Once a cap is agreed to, all of the other issues are essentially mute.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

Putting the age for unrestricted free agency on the table by the owners is a very significant move.

It's significant from a fan's perspective, because it would ruin the game, but it's not significant from the PA's perspective.

The bottom line is that the NHL has "compromised" their previous proposal of giving players a fixed 53.2% of revenues to now giving them 54%. Wow.

 

[jcab2000]

LeClair was already going to give up $6+ million as part of the NHLPA proposal, and Bettman wants him to give up an extra $3+ million so that the little guy will feel better.

I'm sorry, but it's BS IMO. LeClair didn't try and re-negotiate his deal when he was vastly underpaid, while he was the NHL's best goal scorer during the mid-90's. he earned that contract just as much as anyone else in the NHL.




I'm not a LeClair lover, and chances are he'll be bought out anyway, just using him as an example.

Sorry, but LeClair DID hold out during preseason to get his contract re-negotiated. I believe it was in 98. He refused to report for 9 days, until Clarke promised him that he'd agree to renegotiate his contract if he came back to camp. He had 3 years left on his contract and Clarke was under no obligation to do so. If the Flyers didn't cave to him because he was unhappy with the contract that HE SIGNED, he would have been another Yashin, holding out while under contract.

Funny, but I don't see him returning the favor today. The Flyers should return the favor and hold out on paying him.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/news/1997/09/18/farber_insider/

 

[jcab2000]

Please explain how lowering the UFA age helps the players if there is a salary cap?

A salary cap means that the size of the pie stays the same.
So lowering the UFA age just changes the ages of the players who get the bigger pieces of the pie.

Once a cap is agreed to, all of the other issues are essentially mute.

It means that they can go sign with the team of their choosing earlier in their career for the most money. Now their only option to moving teams is to holdout and demand a trade. To get more money, their only option was to holdout for more. In either event, they are always considered the villian.

 

[AM]

Just to get this straight

The only thing the owners have conceded is a year of UFA age. This is bad, bad news.

You're in favour of a system where you start negotiations a long ways away from where you wanna be at the end, then slowly move there over the talks?

The owners opened their books.

They are suggesting a fair linkage between revenues and salaries.

The players should be discussing how to assure a fair representation of revenues, nothing more.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

It means that they can go sign with the team of their choosing earlier in their career for the most money. Now their only option to moving teams is to holdout and demand a trade. To get more money, their only option was to holdout for more. In either event, they are always considered the villian.

Your looking at it in an individual's situation.

Look at from the standpoint of all the players.
It wouldn't matter if they made 18 the age for Unrestricted Free Agency. Because with a salary cap, there aren't going to be teams bidding like crazy for services.

UFA is attractive to a player in today's market.

But in a salary cap market, it really isn't going to mean much, in the big picture.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Sorry, but LeClair DID hold out during preseason to get his contract re-negotiated. I believe it was in 98. He refused to report for 9 days, until Clarke promised him that he'd agree to renegotiate his contract if he came back to camp. He had 3 years left on his contract and Clarke was under no obligation to do so. If the Flyers didn't cave to him because he was unhappy with the contract that HE SIGNED, he would have been another Yashin, holding out while under contract.

Funny, but I don't see him returning the favor today. The Flyers should return the favor and hold out on paying him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/news/1997/09/18/farber_insider/

I did forget about that, it was 1997. He went from being massively underpaid, to just underpaid, afer re-negotaiting his deal in 1997.


Again I was not trying to single out LeClair, I just chose him, because I knew exactly what he had remaining on his deal. I wanted to use yashin but wasn't sure of the specifics on his deal.

 

[jcab2000]

Your looking at it in an individual's situation.

Look at from the standpoint of all the players.
It wouldn't matter if they made 18 the age for Unrestricted Free Agency. Because with a salary cap, there aren't going to be teams bidding like crazy for services.

UFA is attractive to a player in today's market.

But in a salary cap market, it really isn't going to mean much, in the big picture.

Players are now basically a piece of meat with no rights where they can play until they're 31. That's a big deal. They would definitely like to be able to choose their team and salary terms freely earlier in their career while they are in their prime.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Players are now basically a piece of meat with no rights where they can play until they're 31. That's a big deal. They would definitely like to be able to choose their team and salary terms freely earlier in their career while they are in their prime.

Don't kid yourself.
The main reason why players want UFA status is this: Cashing IN.

With no teams having cash to spend, UFA status becomes far less meaningful.

 

[sabresfan65]

Your looking at it in an individual's situation.

Look at from the standpoint of all the players.
It wouldn't matter if they made 18 the age for Unrestricted Free Agency. Because with a salary cap, there aren't going to be teams bidding like crazy for services.

UFA is attractive to a player in today's market.

But in a salary cap market, it really isn't going to mean much, in the big picture.

Actually a lower UFA age would allow players to find the biggest piece of pie earlier. Lets say you are on a team with 4 star players each making 5 million. That's 20 million right there. Leaving just 18.6 million for 20 other players. If you are one of those 20, maybe you find a team with less stars so instead of making 800K you can jump your salary up into the 1.5 million range on a team which has room due to their lack of stars. Players would be able to "find" their money earlier and wouldn't be stuck for extra years with a small piece of the pie. That's exactly what has happened in the NFL. Players have to move to find the money they want sometimes. The stars get their pieces and the rest have to fight over the rest. Lower UFA would also help to remove the floaters from the league. If you are an UFA at 28 lets say, you best make sure that you play well or teams won't be lining up at your door.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

weak luxory tax situation that wont change the current system.
.

Bettman made it clear no tax level at any threshold will be approved, ever.

sounds like a man willing to negotiate.

dr

 

[coyotechrisz]

One Time salary rollbacks..

Does it mean that the only have less salary for one year.. and then next year the would be able to get more again ???

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Actually a lower UFA age would allow players to find the biggest piece of pie earlier. Lets say you are on a team with 4 star players each making 5 million. That's 20 million right there. Leaving just 18.6 million for 20 other players. If you are one of those 20, maybe you find a team with less stars so instead of making 800K you can jump your salary up into the 1.5 million range on a team which has room due to their lack of stars. Players would be able to "find" their money earlier and wouldn't be stuck for extra years with a small piece of the pie. That's exactly what has happened in the NFL. Players have to move to find the money they want sometimes. The stars get their pieces and the rest have to fight over the rest. Lower UFA would also help to remove the floaters from the league. If you are an UFA at 28 lets say, you best make sure that you play well or teams won't be lining up at your door.

Again, you are looking at it from the case of one individual. ANd you are obviously choosing a very talented individual.

Look at it from the big picture.
Under a cap scenario, if UFA Player A cashes in and makes money earlier, then UFA player B is going to have to take less.

You nailed it: The stars get their money and the rest fight for the rest.

WHich is why this Bettman offer is so disingenuous.
Buy forcing the high-salary guys to cut so much money and protecting low salary guys' salaries, he's trying to win over the little guy players.

But within two or three years, the little guys are gonna get screwed when the money dries up and it's all tied up in the stars' salaries.

 

[s7ark]

Bettman made it clear no tax level at any threshold will be approved, ever.

sounds like a man willing to negotiate.

dr

Goodenow has made it clear they will never accept a salary cap, sounds like a man willing to negotiate.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

One Time salary rollbacks..

Does it mean that the only have less salary for one year.. and then next year the would be able to get more again ???

Well if the owners handle it right, it means it could keep salaries down. Say player A's contract is up and is looking for a new deal. Player B with similar stats in the old system making 10 million would be compariable for player A to demand 10 million a year. Under the new system player B would be making 7.6 million and player A wouldnt be able to demand 10 million, and the owner could point to 7.6 million and sign player A for that much, saving 2.4 million. Probably a bad example but it makes sense to me.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

SO you consider going AWAY from a market based system (with restrictions obviouslY) is something you should negotiate?

Haven't you people learnt? Artificial barriers on pretty much any industry/salary/production etc that is not determined by supply and demand leads to a less optimal outcome.

I loved the weasel's answers. He said he wants Pittsburgh and Nashville fans to think they can win (I dont see how Nashville's attendnace could NOT go up after last year!) by being more "Equal"


Uhh.... nice of him to totally disregard how the equality would be acheived. THe players have to come from somewhere, right Gary boy?

I was wating for a writer to ask him that quesiton, too bad.

He lied so many times. Not many of the media were on his side. Most were either neutral or clearly against him. The tide is turning.

 

[Buffaloed]

Sort of like 'real life' graduated taxes, isn't it? Maybe you find that unfair as well ( I do NOT want to start up a debate on 'real life' anything ), but it's the same sort of premise--rich guys can afford to spend more on taxes. Here's a fun chart from the NHL response (edited):

Percent of all contracts:
Less than $800K (0% cut) 43.8%
Between $800K to $1.49MM (15.0% cut) 24.0%
Between $1.50MM to $1.99MM (20.0% cut) 7.3%
Between $2.00MM to $3.99MM (24.0% cut) 16.7%
Between $4.00MM to 4.99MM (30.0% cut) 3.0%
$5.00MM and Over (35.0% cut) 5.2%

Divide and conquer.

Now we know the NHL's impasse strategy. They'll propose a rollback in their final offer that they hope 50% of the NHLPA members will approve. If the NHLPA refuses to put it to the membership for a vote, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone it's not a legal impasse.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Wow what a offer, im blown away by how much the NHL is sharing in there revenues with the players. Goodenow will be out of a job for costing players a lot and I mean a lot of money if he does not accept this system. Plys the NHL is going to put forth the escrow which will likely be redistrbuted back to players each year, because payroll ranges will remain in the range that is being offered.

Someone should harm Goodenow so the NHL can get a real negotiating patna, maybe hire Mike Commodore as head of the NHLPA.

 

[Trottier]

Reading last week's proposal and today's counter, one thing is clear: the two sides are NEGOTIATING.

That obvious point in lost often in these board discussions as posters stick to their sides, without hint of compromise.

Seems to me that critical to this entire CBA negotiation is the Union's willingness to recognize the need to tie overall league payroll spending to league revenue, in some way. If/when that can be achieved, a deal will be struck, IMO, and rapidly. Until then, no.

What the hell? I mean I'm never going to make 7 million dollars a year and I can live a damn good life compared to others in the world....

Looking forward to your reaction the first time someone suggests you make too much money and should give some back.

Because you (or I, for that matter) won't make $7 million a year, someone else shouldn't?

Let see. Take your pick. That is either:

a) class envy
b) socialism personafied
c) A & B

Easy to casually take other's rights away from them. Never suggested we "cry a river" for any of the participants in this CBA. Am suggesting that the zealous urge to repress others is very dangerous.

Just my opinion.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Wow what a offer, im blown away by how much the NHL is sharing in there revenues with the players. Goodenow will be out of a job for costing players a lot and I mean a lot of money if he does not accept this system. Plys the NHL is going to put forth the escrow which will likely be redistrbuted back to players each year, because payroll ranges will remain in the range that is being offered.

Someone should harm Goodenow so the NHL can get a real negotiating patna, maybe hire Mike Commodore as head of the NHLPA.

Wow.
I'm speechless.

 

[Mxpunk]

I wish Gretzky and Lemieux would get involved as former players/owners. I believe their opinions will matter a great deal and could influence any sort of agreement....

 

[AlexandreDaigle]

Bottom line....

54% of the revenues to the players---- with an independant auditor judging things---- is a generous and fair starting point.

There are flaws with the NHL proposal, but there is NO good reason the players can't use this as a starting point.

 

[Rick Middleton]

Who the heck are you, me or anyone else to play judge, jury and God with regard to determining how much money is "enough" for another individual?!?!?!?

As fans who pay their salary, that's who.

 

[sabresfan65]

Again, you are looking at it from the case of one individual. ANd you are obviously choosing a very talented individual.

Look at it from the big picture.
Under a cap scenario, if UFA Player A cashes in and makes money earlier, then UFA player B is going to have to take less.

You nailed it: The stars get their money and the rest fight for the rest.

WHich is why this Bettman offer is so disingenuous.
Buy forcing the high-salary guys to cut so much money and protecting low salary guys' salaries, he's trying to win over the little guy players.

But within two or three years, the little guys are gonna get screwed when the money dries up and it's all tied up in the stars' salaries.

When you say UFA B has to take less, what do you mean? Less than he made before, less than UFA A, less than what? UFA B has the same opportunity to find the piece of the pie that he wants. Yes, one guy getting will mean one guy doesn't. Which is the same as it is now, except in the current situation, they can all go to the Rangers, they will pay them what ever they want. Mike Peca is making about 4.5 million per season with the Isles. About 1.5-2 million more than he was offered by the Sabres. Do you think the Sabres wanted to get rid of Peca? If the Sabres had payed him than somebody else would not have gotten paid. Buffalo has been playing with a salary cap for years. The problem is that the rest of the league hasn't all been under the same salary cap.

I understand that there will be problems with a cap, just as there will be under any system. At least with a cap, all of the teams will be playing by the same rules, and that my friend is a good thing.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

^^^ They wont do **** for the negotiation. There both on the owners side now, and will push for the cap especially Mario. Just face the facts these NHL players are some of the worst human beings in sports, real greedy and don't care about hockey, but keeping there inflated salaries in tact. Its not gonna hurt them to work under a cap players will still make mutlimillion dollar contracts, and continue to wear fancy clothes, and drive there fancy cars, only thing they wont have is celebrity wifes. The NHL is gaurnteeing them money, who wouldnt want a gaurnteed amount of money. Under the old CBA once contracs expire the NHL clubs could simply sign players like Mike Commodore, and continue on while John Leclair and etc will sit there wanting to be paid a fair amount as they say at $8 million a season, while no GM will give them job. There so stubbourn I want to slap Goodenow and Trevor LInden for being such idiots.