Here's the whole NHL proposal

[Trottier]

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

:lol

You are joking, correct?

You hold a stupid ticket stub in your hand, a beer in the other and you seriously think that owners of clubs and professionals earning millions of dollars should listen to you?

Talk about the modern fan injecting himself into the sport. Talk about self-importance beyond all proportion.

You are a paying customer. You don't like the entertainment, the way the business conducts itself, go elsewhere. In that way, you have a a tangible impact, but that is where your influence ends.

To actually suggest that you should have a say in the livelihoods of players and owners and how they run their business is the height of delusion and folly.

 

[markov`]

After reading all of this, I think what the owners are proposing is fair. I like some of their ideas, like...

"# Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues. "

How can it be fairer?

 

[bleedgreen]

in the end, the owners are in charge. thats why they dont have to cave or give concessions. from what ive read so far, the system they have proposed looks like it would work, and seems fair to everyone. frankly, i thought it would be worse. ive never been a hard cap guy, but i think today we have seen what the league will look like in a year, and im not as upset as i used to be about it. they seem to handle all the issues fairly, and i think the only response against it is "but....we dont want a cap". its hard to dispute that this proposal wouldnt work fine without tweaking. you cant say the same about the players offer.

and i dont care if leclair loses 3 mill a year either.

 

[Mxpunk]

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

Agreed...What would these players be doing if it wasnt for our money paying their salaries?

 

[Rick Middleton]

:lol

You are joking, correct?

You hold a stupid ticket stub in your hand, a beer in the other and you seriously think that owners of clubs and professionals earning millions of dollars should listen to you?

Talk about the modern fan injecting himself into the sport. Talk about self-importance beyond all proportion.

The NHL is gate-driven, is it not?

And the last time I checked, the people in the seats are fans, right?

You're suggesting that the consumer should NOT have a say in the product? You wouldn't last very long in the business world with that attitude.

You are a paying customer. You don't like the entertainment, the way the business conducts itself, go elsewhere. In that way, you have a a tangible effect, but that is where it ends.

To actually suggest that you should have a say in the livelihoods of players and owners and how they run their business is the height of delusion and folly.

I think you're clueing in with the 2nd half of your post. Fans will dictate how much players are paid by not paying absorbitant sums for their tickets. This is (well, was as of last year) the case in many cities.

Take for example Ottawa (my home town, but not my home team). The Sens regularly sell out their cheaper seats, while higher priced seats often are left unfilled. Why? Well, this is an entire thread unto itself, but to sum it up short and sweet, because fans are either unwilling or unable to pay for those seats on a regular basis.

So, if your revenue goes down because fans are disgruntled and don't buy tickets, doesn't that affect the salaries of the players?

 

[Lexicon Devil]

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

How are the owners negotiating?

What have they offered of substance? Their current proposal is arguably worse than what they proposed months ago. It seems alot more like "take it or leave it" than negotiating.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Good deal, stirs the pot.

It looks like a clause to try and divide and conquer, AKA break the union.

 

[I in the Eye]

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.

Great point...

 

[X0ssbar]

I think the owner's proposal is a fair starting point - throwing out a 54% starting point for the player's share should definitely be negotiable. Then again, I think the NHLPA's proposal was a good starting point - throwing out a 24% reduction should definitely be negotiable.

The owners have already shown they will up the anty for the player's share and the players have admitted that the NHL's losses are significant. This is progress in this cat and mouse game.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if at the end of the day, the players get 60% of revenues, a UFA of 27 or 28 with lighter rollback and the owners get their salary to revenue link.

I agree with whoever stated that these guys are negotiating - this thing is far from being over.

One particular point I liked in the NHL proposal was this:

"Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues. "

..at least they are wiling to bring a 3rd party in for something

 

[Mxpunk]

:You are a paying customer. You don't like the entertainment, the way the business conducts itself, go elsewhere. In that way, you have a a tangible impact, but that is where your influence ends.

To actually suggest that you should have a say in the livelihoods of players and owners and how they run their business is the height of delusion and folly.

Isn't the purported reason for the NHLPA's rejection of a salary cap because the "fans" will be hurt by a less competitive league? It seems that even the NHLPA feels the fans are important...I believe that's what Trevor Linden stated in his article about the lockout....

In business, ESPECIALLY entertainment, the fans and consumers are the driving force in salaries, prices, etc.

 

[Winger98]

The salary cap for last year would have been a minimum of $34.6 million and a maximim of $38.6 million on the high end. (I'd love to see how this helps Pittsburgh or Nashville)

yeah, I don't get it, either. They could make the case that those teams will get more bang for their buck, but it won't matter when those teams fold because they're still hemoraging heavy cash. Unless the revenue sharing is massive, teams like Carolina will be just as worse off as they were under the old CBA, while Edmonton and Calgary also wouldn't have their costs reduced at all.

The only teams this deal would seem to benefit, financially, are teams like Detroit.

To be honest, if teams like Carolina are so willing to take this route with their claims of losing large amounts of money with their current payroll already at a similar level, I question their claims of how much money they've been losing.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

yeah, I don't get it, either. They could make the case that those teams will get more bang for their buck, but it won't matter when those teams fold because they're still hemoraging heavy cash. Unless the revenue sharing is massive, teams like Carolina will be just as worse off as they were under the old CBA, while Edmonton and Calgary also wouldn't have their costs reduced at all.

The only teams this deal would seem to benefit, financially, are teams like Detroit.

To be honest, if teams like Carolina are so willing to take this route with their claims of losing large amounts of money with their current payroll already at a similar level, I question their claims of how much money they've been losing.

Exactly the teams this helps the most financially are the big money teams, that will now make 10's of millions of dollars.

 

[Trottier]

You're suggesting that the consumer should NOT have a say in the product?

If you mean have a say in the NHL's CBA, absolutely not. Should you have a say on how a Broadway play is directed because you bought a ticket? It is entertainment. Enough people like it, pay for it, it is an economically viable business. Otherwise, it has issues. But those "issues" are the sole concern of the people who invested hundreds of millions and its union of performers (players). Get it? You and I are, as always, a spectator. For us, the league is an option. For the players and owners, it is a livelihood, a multi-million-dollar business. See the difference?

You wouldn't last very long in the business world with that attitude.

I'll be kind: want to compare our respective financial worth?

So, if your revenue goes down because fans are disgruntled and don't buy tickets, doesn't that affect the salaries of the players?

No kidding. See above. You and I can impact/effect their busine$$ (gate revenue). To suggest we should have a say in how they choose to run their business, is a much different point. Not sure you see the distinction.

Isn't the purported reason for the NHLPA's rejection of a salary cap because the "fans" will be hurt by a less competitive league? It seems that even the NHLPA feels the fans are important...I believe that's what Trevor Linden stated in his article about the lockout....

When I read that line (about the fans), I see "public relations" written all over it. And, let's be clear, no one is suggesting that fans are not important. But do you not see the distinction? As you suggest...

In business, ESPECIALLY entertainment, the fans and consumers are the driving force in salaries, prices, etc.

There is NO DISAGREEMENT with that very basic business concept. And as such, the customer can/should influence business decisions. In this case, that influence is exerted by choosing to purchase tickets, merchandice, etc., or not. But regardless, ultimately, ownership/management (in concert with the union) alone is charged with deciding how to run their business. (Be it successfully or into the ground.) Not the fan/customer. Some fans think they are entitled to such a say. An opinion? Sure. An actual say in how the league wishes to run its business? No.

 

[EaGLE1]

Can you imagine what Jean Beliveau think about the NHLPA?

The truth is that they are nothing but blood-suckers.

I'm behind Bettman for the 1st time in my life.

Goodenow is nothing but the standard crazy syndical leader. And players buy what he say

 

[Yus]

Anyone have any idea what Minnesota's revenues are? I'm willing to bet they spend the least amount money on payroll as a percentage of their revenue. It would be funny if they had to spend MORE money under this CBA.

 

[chriss_co]

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

sounds like a man willing to negotiate.

dr

well.. in all fairness.. you look at goodenow who says no salary cap or anything slightly resembling a cap of any matter will ever be negotiated by the PA

he sounds like a man willing to negotiate too doesn't he?

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

ive been on the owners side this whole time, but this is just bs. bettman won't even consider a luxury tax? he keeps saying that it will result in losses, but those losses will come from owners willing to take that loss. with a luxury tax, those extra dollars gets redistributed to the smaller markets. some form of that system has to work. bettman needs to get his head out of his ass

 

[SuperUnknown]

ive been on the owners side this whole time, but this is just bs. bettman won't even consider a luxury tax? he keeps saying that it will result in losses, but those losses will come from owners willing to take that loss. with a luxury tax, those extra dollars gets redistributed to the smaller markets. some form of that system has to work. bettman needs to get his head out of his ass

It's because a luxury tax will probably be the last concession the league will make. They're still trying to get a cap in, and depending how desperate they are for a cap, they might wait until they can "enforce" it. At some point, sooner or later, a majority of players will play under a cap anyway, since it still provides them with the best revenues around the world.

 

[chriss_co]

ive been on the owners side this whole time, but this is just bs. bettman won't even consider a luxury tax? he keeps saying that it will result in losses, but those losses will come from owners willing to take that loss. with a luxury tax, those extra dollars gets redistributed to the smaller markets. some form of that system has to work. bettman needs to get his head out of his ass

Yea i understand where u are coming from because I personally would accept a luxory tax with harsh stipulations

But i also understand bettman's point for rejecting a luxory tax based on the fact that it really doesn't curb spending by big spenders, which will translate to lower teams missing out on higher quality players (unless they too are willing to go over the luxory tax threshold and pay a tax)

And i believe (im not certain) but if the league were to propose a dollar for dollar tax at say $40 million, the PA would reject it outright and call it a hard cap in disguise... though it never hurts to try

 

[K215215]

yeah, I don't get it, either. They could make the case that those teams will get more bang for their buck, but it won't matter when those teams fold because they're still hemoraging heavy cash. Unless the revenue sharing is massive, teams like Carolina will be just as worse off as they were under the old CBA, while Edmonton and Calgary also wouldn't have their costs reduced at all.

The only teams this deal would seem to benefit, financially, are teams like Detroit.

To be honest, if teams like Carolina are so willing to take this route with their claims of losing large amounts of money with their current payroll already at a similar level, I question their claims of how much money they've been losing.

Exactly.

 

[Rick Middleton]

If you mean have a say in the NHL's CBA, absolutely not. Should you have a say on how a Broadway play is directed because you bought a ticket? It is entertainment. Enough people like it, pay for it, it is an economically viable business. Otherwise, it has issues. But those "issues" are the sole concern of the people who invested hundreds of millions and its union of performers (players). Get it? You and I are, as always, a spectator. For us, the league is an option. For the players and owners, it is a livelihood, a multi-million-dollar business. See the difference?

My point was and still is is that if they continue to squabble over how to divide up that $2.1 billion dollar pie, they'll soon realize that fans won't be willing to support a league, and players specifically, whose salary demands far exceed their worth when compared to the other major leagues. And therefore, we will be able to affect the overall (and average) salary by lessening that 'pie'.

And about comparing our net worth, does the change in my pocket count too?

 

[me2]

Anyone have any idea what Minnesota's revenues are? I'm willing to bet they spend the least amount money on payroll as a percentage of their revenue. It would be funny if they had to spend MORE money under this CBA.

as good a guess as any (its down a bit on the previous year because they missed the playoffs)

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/11-14-04cba.htm

 

[RLC]

Well I hope everyone is clear that the owners are realy serious this time.
with the NHL proposal the big spending teams with a big market give up their big money advantage. They are willing to drop their spending to a 38mill maximum and caped. They won't be able to buy any player anytime they want. they will have to get or stay competitive using good drafting and good coaching ( like everyone else)
So if they ( the big market clubs) are willing to offer the players this system, that means they are willing to give up this big competitive advantage for the good of the game. Yes they will be able to keep more money but on the other hand it's they that will have to explain to their fans that they should not expect to win a cup every year. The small market clubs below 32mill will get extra money to prop them up to the 32mill level. This is good for them and will make them more competitive and maybe grow their market and finally sell hockey to the local fans.
I can see that a few years of this kind of system might just grow the business and finally get a much better TV deal, which could bring in a ton of money for everyone.
With a good TV deal all this money problems will go away and the players will see much better money also.
Like any other business on the face of this earth, if the business grows the workers get raises if not then not.

 

[Buffaloed]

OK.. then in a way when they retooled the player's "big" concession, the owners have conceded...

because they are helping out the 730 smaller salary players by saying the 24% is TOO much to take away

That's what the NHL would like those players to think so they support their proposal. The reality is many of those guys won't get qualifying offers when their contract's expire. If a team has a core player(s) whose contract is due to expire and he deserves a raise, or they want to play in the UFA market, where do you think the cap room will come from? Teams are going to be cutting those $800-$1.2 million guys loose to create cap space. They'll be a surplus of them on the free agent market, available for $400-800K. In the end they'll be taking much greater than a 24% cut. It'll be just like the NFL, "take a pay cut, or we'll have to let you go".

 

[YellHockey*]

Can you imagine what Jean Beliveau think about the NHLPA?

The truth is that they are nothing but blood-suckers.

Beliveau was the original NHLer to hold out for more money.