if I was the NHL

[Brent Burns Beard]

If I was the NHL and wanted to see how bonafide the players were in their "no cap" position, Id offer an 90m cap.

The players have 2 options:

1) decline. we will never accept a cap, ANY cap.
2) decide that it might be worth putting a pinkie in the water to discuss.

If the players choose 1, they might want to consider a new strategy if the players are that firm in their resolve.

If they choose 2, the owners should then call the players bluff and say "see you will talk about a cap" now come to the negotiating table.

Of course, Im not expecting the owners to agree to a 90m cap, nor suggesting I support one. Its simply a plan to get the two some common ground in one parties "red zone".

DR

Click to read more...

 

[me2]

If I was the NHL and wanted to see how bonafide the players were in their "no cap" position, Id offer an 90m cap.

The players have 2 options:

1) decline. we will never accept a cap, ANY cap.
2) decide that it might be worth putting a pinkie in the water to discuss.

If the players choose 1, they might want to consider a new strategy if the players are that firm in their resolve.

If they choose 2, the owners should then call the players bluff and say "see you will talk about a cap" now come to the negotiating table.

Of course, Im not expecting the owners to agree to a 90m cap, nor suggesting I support one. Its simply a plan to get the two some common ground in one parties "red zone".

DR

If its a formal offer then the owners might get stuck with a $90m cap at the impasse. If its hypothetical question to the NHLPA they wouldn't take it seriously enough to reply.

 

[joepeps]

No

The NHLPA already offered 50 mill cap the NHL denied it

 

[West]

Does anyone know where to get break downs of what the NHLPA and NHL have offered so far.

All I really know is both sides say that what's been offered is unacceptable. Not very informative to my way of thinking.

 

[Sotnos]

The NHLPA already offered 50 mill cap the NHL denied it

When was this?

 

[joepeps]

Hum

On tv... Right before the deadline... apparently they offered 50 with a lux tax, and the league denied it because they didn't wan't a tax beacuse it fluctuates

 

[Sotnos]

Oh. That was a luxury tax, which is NOT a cap.

 

[Papadice]

On tv... Right before the deadline... apparently they offered 50 with a lux tax, and the league denied it because they didn't wan't a tax beacuse it fluctuates

That's not an offer of a $50 million cap... A luxury tax and a salary cap are two entirely different things... The league is hard in their resolve that they won't accept a luxury tax... The players are hard in their resolve that they won't accept a salary cap... They are two very different things... The players NEVER offered a salary cap...

 

[Whakahere]

I have been putting my mind to this. How can we get both sides on the same page.
1. The NHL wants a cap or some strong way to limit player salary
2. No cap and a free market
3. As a fan we want to be able to afford to go to games.

I don,t think you should limit the amount a player can "make" but what I am about to say will have an impact.

I want to keep the average salary up. It is pointless dropping it as the NHL wants to be the best league therefore has to pay the best money. To get the best money they need fans and T.V. Contracts. Right now they are losing both very quickly.

here is the James Rodgers Plan.

1. Set an base wage for the league at $1,700,000 US

2. During the year you can only spend $34,000,000 US on rostered player salary. To be named a roster player you had to be named to the 20 players for that night. If you are not on this list of 20 players for that game you don't towards the payroll. This means you could have 23 players on your pro team but you only count 20 of them (the players that are dressed) from each game night. These figures are averaged out the year. including any bouns money made. Therefore If you had a roster of 31,000,000 for one night (really that is 31,000,000 / 82 = $378,048 US for that game) and another night you had 37,000,000 the next night (which really is $451,219 US for that game) It would only average to be $34,000,000. If you go over this limit you must pay 0.75cent to the dollar for the first five million then dollar for dollar for the next five million. $1.25 to the dollar for the 5 mil (and so on). The base wage will not change based on how much money teams will spend. teams will be taxed as well if they go under 29 million a year at the same rate.

3. The players take a one time 10% roll back in player salaries.

4. average ticket price must match the same as the players gave back. any extra money made goes back to players. E.g. players take 10% off their wage. (say it total 60 million) owners must take off 10% of the average ticket (across the league if by the end of the year that only came to 50 million then they must give back 10 million to the players) It also must be reported to the fans! That money must be removed from the ticket price the next year. Damn capitist owners.

5. entry level contract set at 1,300,000 a year with bouns maxing out at a total of $250,000 with a max of 3 years and a min of 2 (You need the good young players to come over from europe)

6. At the end of the year the TV contracts is taken in. if the TV contract goes up, player's base salary goes up. If it goes down so does the player's base salary. This rewards the players for good games on tv (the bettman cause)

7. All teams will be taxed for their first 20 million profit they make over the salary cap (this is so good market teams still can make money). this money and the other tax (for going over the pay roll). This money goes to teams that did not make any money or helping them reach the profit total of 10 million.

8. If all teams make over 10 million - any tax for salary (with inflation) in profit the the average ticket price must drop by an over all of 50% of the profit made over the 10 million mark (so if they made 12 million, 1 million must be cut from average ticket price). and the other 50% of the over flow profit is to be added to the base salary. This way they owners shouldn't make too much money while the players know that if the product does well they will make more money. If no team makes the 10 million mark in profit the base salary drops to help make that mark by half that mark. If at this same time (losing money) the average attendance is 95% or more from around the league (not your team), ticket prices are to increase by the other 50%. If the average attendance is 97% (while making money) ticket prices increase. (which will in turn increase player salary).

9. A joint NHL / NHLPA account firm to check up on team income sources. (yea, just can't trust them).

I am a fan, a teacher and a watcher of people's behaviour. I have noticed one thing. If the culture of something seems cool then people will climb onto the band wagon. If teams sell out games, more people want to go to a sell out game.

This is a cap. I know it it is. But it will kill the rich teams if they keep spending over the cap as the tciket prices will drop and player salary will go up. It is a free market system based on what the owners spend but at the same time limiting them. It is a deal for the fans as much as the owners and players. If you want it more explained I can go in more detail.

If big market teams keep going over the cap the cap will raise but at the same time this will cut into their income. Therefore a big arket team that once made huge profit can really hurt theselves if they raise the base salary.

Okay that is my idea. It is made for the fans, players and owners all in mind. Not just those damn owners or players ... as the NHL and NHLPA see it.