Linkage at 55% offered by Owners ..What does it mean ??

[Drury_Sakic]

Its not that we don't see that they would have to meet 53%

its the question of how it would be done. How would the NHL close the gap to get to that number, as there will be several teams that could not meet the 32 million without a detailed revenue sharing program.


It is also difficult to see how a escrow program would work to fix this problem.


If the plan was so perfect... the NHLPA would have had to look at it closer..but clearly it was not, or at least the NHL could not explain it in the right way so that the players understood it.

 

[EricBowser]

Geez people, it ain't rocket science.

You place a certain % of player salaries in an escrow account and you also place a certain % of revenues into an escrow account per team.

At the end of the season, if a team couldn't make the required 53% payroll, NHL would take whatever it has to take out of the NHL escrow and give it to the NHLPA for distribution, likely the players of the team(s) who didn't make the payroll requirement.

End of story.

 

[Munchausen]

If the plan was so perfect... the NHLPA would have had to look at it closer..but clearly it was not, or at least the NHL could not explain it in the right way so that the players understood it.

Sorry but no. The PA isn't about to consider this deal even if it was rock solid as far as guarantees go. What they are after is a free market and an inflationary system. Linkage is anything but this. So having or not having guarantees or details on how they would get that 55% is beyond the point, they are not interested in a 55% linkage offer. Period.

 

[ArtG]

Sorry but no. The PA isn't about to consider this deal even if it was rock solid as far as guarantees go. What they are after is a free market and an inflationary system. Linkage is anything but this. So having or not having guarantees or details on how they would get that 55% is beyond the point, they are not interested in a 55% linkage offer. Period.

is that why they accepted a salary cap?

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Sorry but no. The PA isn't about to consider this deal even if it was rock solid as far as guarantees go. What they are after is a free market and an inflationary system. Linkage is anything but this. So having or not having guarantees or details on how they would get that 55% is beyond the point, they are not interested in a 55% linkage offer. Period.

OK, so perhaps that is the PA's executive stance on it..

But I am talking about Joe Player knowing about it.... If the NHL(and clearly alot of people here) see it as a great deal, why has the NHL not outlined it in greater detail, with the hope of turning more of the rank and file against Goodensucks?

 

[Munchausen]

is that why they accepted a salary cap?

It isn't the same thing at all. Linkage is much more restrictive than a cap alone, since it makes sure that the players as a whole cannot get overpaid and that if the revenues go down, so does their salaries. A cap without linkage is still a free market, just a more restrictive one. But linkage? It's the end of overpayment as we know it.

 

[Munchausen]

OK, so perhaps that is the PA's executive stance on it..

But I am talking about Joe Player knowing about it.... If the NHL(and clearly alot of people here) see it as a great deal, why has the NHL not outlined it in greater detail, with the hope of turning more of the rank and file against Goodensucks?

No offense to the players, but it's their responsability to either entirely trust the executive committee and live by what they decide or ask questions about what they consider ambiguous. If they're too thick to do it, they fully deserve what's about to hit them. The league isn't negotiating with 700 guys, only with their leaders.

Besides, the deal might seem fair for an outsider, but a player that has grown as a professional in a system where they have all the leverage to have their salaries sky-rocket are bound to become spoiled and uninterested in anything "fair" outside of their so called "free market".

I'm not saying the 55% offer is fair, you could argue it should be 60%, but the concept of linkage makes perfect sense from an economical stand point and to oppose it is to me the definition of either bad faith or denial.

 

[ArtG]

It isn't the same thing at all. Linkage is much more restrictive than a cap alone, since it makes sure that the players as a whole cannot get overpaid and that if the revenues go down, so does their salaries. A cap without linkage is still a free market, just a more restrictive one. But linkage? It's the end of overpayment as we know it.

Well if, as you said earlier, they are after a free market then a cap nullifies that. Also, in the players' last offer they did have linkage but only on the upside..

 

[Munchausen]

Well if, as you said earlier, they are after a free market then a cap nullifies that. Also, in the players' last offer they did have linkage but only on the upside..

Upward indexing as Goodenow put it, outside of being a complete joke, doesn't link salaries to a specific %. The players could end up making more, hence it is not true linkage, only a mean to make sure the cap number increases over the years to expend the market place.

A cap doesn't remove the free market from the equation, since the players can still be overpaid (in other words, paid more than the 55% the owners are prepared to pay them) under such system. Of course, you could argue that the cap could be lowered enough so that even if all teams maxed out their payroll range, they could not spend more than 55% of revenues (based the 2.1M number). But the 49M soft cap the players offered certainly doesn't prevent that in the least, only makes it less likely, and if revenues go down, that cap number becomes obsolete to prevent any form of overspending from big market teams.

 

[Mess]

Upward indexing as Goodenow put it, outside of being a complete joke, doesn't link salaries to a specific %. The players could end up making more, hence it is not true linkage, only a mean to make sure the cap number increases over the years to expend the market place.

A cap doesn't remove the free market from the equation, since the players can still be overpaid (in other words, paid more than the 55% the owners are prepared to pay them) under such system. Of course, you could argue that the cap could be lowered enough so that even if all teams maxed out their payroll range, they could not spend more than 55% of revenues (based the 2.1M number). But the 49M soft cap the players offered certainly doesn't prevent that in the least, only makes it less likely, and if revenues go down, that cap number becomes obsolete to prevent any form of overspending from big market teams.

Now tell me if the league sets the Ceiling for the Hard Cap at 55% linkage to league Revenue . . using last years numbers (because linkage will correct to actual each year)

$2.1 Bil Rev /30 teams = 70 mil per team X 55% linkage = 38.5 mil Hard Cap.

Or if you want to look at it the same way

$2.1 Bil X 55% (players cut) = $ 1.155 bil to be spent on players salaries ..Correct

If the NHL makes the Hard Cap Ceiling the 55% or 38.5 mil .. Like you suggest

Question : How do the players get their 55% share ??

Answer : They only way is if all 30 teams spent every penny up to the Hard Cap figure .. 38.5 m x 30 teams = 1.155 Bil ..

Now what happens when Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Nashville all spend less ??.. The players get cheated out of their 55% fair share is what happens ...

**** How come people can't see this?? ****

If Pittsburgh spent only 30 mil then the league has to allow Detroit to spend 47 mil to compensate so together 47+30 = $77 mil / 2 teams = 38.5 Mil

Sure the Toronto, Philly, NYR, Detroit will spend up to the cap and give the players the 55%, but what about all the other teams ??

For the Players to get their 55% ..

Team spending on salaries has to equal 55% of league revenues..

Or at least the Floor min and Ceiling would have to be within a small range .. If you set a Ceiling at 40 Mil and Floor at 35 Mil .. then the NHLPA would be assured of getting roughly 55% (based on last year numbers) ..

 

[ArtG]

is it just me or did this thread just come full circle?

 

[Phanuthier*]

is it just me or did this thread just come full circle?

This thread actually went somewhere?!?!

As far as I'm concerned, this thread didn't even touch off the ground, since the origanator of the thread didn't do his homework and had some pretty flawed logic.

 

[IceDragoon]

...snip... you could argue it should be 60%, but the concept of linkage makes perfect sense from an economical stand point and to oppose it is to me the definition of either bad faith or denial.

Now that looks like "negotiating", if you want a hand in building a successful, sustainable future.

btw - I can think of a few more definitions.

 

[EricBowser]

Reason, negotiating in good faith, and representing the interests of all the members of the PA does not exist in the dictionary or law books for Goodenow, Saskin, and the cronies working for the select few who run the PA.

Pro-PA followers fail to realize the real economic situation that exists in hockey or the economic model failures that have been offered by the PA as "the best deal ever".

The NHLPA had a great shot to win this battle by taking the $42.5 and then saying, ok then we want arbitration iwth limited club rights from the December PA model.

NHL could then say, then we want the QO's to be under 100% for players over $1.3 million. NHLPA could then say, they want more bonus money for the entry-level contracts.

It is a give and take, NHLPA blew their shot.

At same time, NHL had their chance to really force the union into a tough spot but 8 owners refused to increase the revenue-sharing plan and those large markets not only ruined hockey with their pathetic economic policy but then killed the season and the revenue earning power of the whole league.

There is plenty of blame at the league office and BOG but the NHLPA made a huge mistake not trying to work off the league's $42.5 offer.

Now the NHL is back to linkage and almost certainly a worse systemic package, tell me how they helps the PA now or in the future.

To copy Brian Burke, "What is Plan B?"

I know, "More of the Same!"

 

[Mess]

The NHLPA had a great shot to win this battle by taking the $42.5 and then saying, ok then we want arbitration iwth limited club rights from the December PA model.

There is plenty of blame at the league office and BOG but the NHLPA made a huge mistake not trying to work off the league's $42.5 offer.

In all fairness the NHLPA tried that .. That failed Saturday meeting that offended Gretz and Lemieux was all about negotiating the systemic issues of the 42.5 Final offer ..

Also after the NHL released the 42.5 mil FINAL OFFER .. the NHLPA countered twice at 52.0 Mil and 49.0 Mil to get the negotiating going .. The NHL really does not want to talk about anything ..

Not sure how you came up to your conclusions .. The NHLPA has made 3 attempts to work off the 42.5 Final offer ..

You also have a couple of Show stoppers you have not mentioned .. meaningful Revenue Sharing and a Hard Cap Floor(minimum) ...

 

[me2]

is that why they accepted a salary cap?

The players accepted an unlinked cap (with upwards indexing). If the NHL linked $2.1B at 55% the players would get $1.15B. Lets say they still get $1.15B unlinked and revenue falls to $1.5B then the players get 77%. If they were on $1.15B and revenue went up to $2.5B then they only get 46%.

Now which of those is more likely, revenue goes up or revenue goes down. Following the lockout its far more likely to go down substantially. That would be why Goodenow doesn't want to lock in a 55%.

The upwards linkage system is designed to protect the players wages if it goes down and improve wages if it goes up. Which isn't exactly fair, it gets a lot worse when you factor in Goodenow wanting to link the cap to revenue weak season. Under the NHLPA system if the NHL recovers from $1.5B back to $2.1B over a few years the cap and floor goes up by 40%! A 40% higher cap and floor to be paid for by the same amount of money they originated negotiated the cap on. That just isn't going to work. "Indexing" should have been done from the 03-04 season at the very least.

 

[me2]

In all fairness the NHLPA tried that .. That failed Saturday meeting that offended Gretz and Lemieux was all about negotiating the systemic issues of the 42.5 Final offer ..

Also after the NHL released the 42.5 mil FINAL OFFER .. the NHLPA countered twice at 52.0 Mil and 49.0 Mil to get the negotiating going .. The NHL really does not want to talk about anything ..

Not sure how you came up to your conclusions .. The NHLPA has made 3 attempts to work off the 42.5 Final offer ..

You also have a couple of Show stoppers you have not mentioned .. meaningful Revenue Sharing and a Hard Cap Floor(minimum) ...

When did the NHLPA try to work off the $42.5m cap? Show me where Goodenow was prepared to accept that number.

 

[Hunter74]

Now tell me if the league sets the Ceiling for the Hard Cap at 55% linkage to league Revenue . . using last years numbers (because linkage will correct to actual each year)

$2.1 Bil Rev /30 teams = 70 mil per team X 55% linkage = 38.5 mil Hard Cap.

Or if you want to look at it the same way

$2.1 Bil X 55% (players cut) = $ 1.155 bil to be spent on players salaries ..Correct

If the NHL makes the Hard Cap Ceiling the 55% or 38.5 mil .. Like you suggest

Question : How do the players get their 55% share ??

Answer : They only way is if all 30 teams spent every penny up to the Hard Cap figure .. 38.5 m x 30 teams = 1.155 Bil ..

Now what happens when Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, Nashville all spend less ??.. The players get cheated out of their 55% fair share is what happens ...

**** How come people can't see this?? ****

If Pittsburgh spent only 30 mil then the league has to allow Detroit to spend 47 mil to compensate so together 47+30 = $77 mil / 2 teams = 38.5 Mil

Sure the Toronto, Philly, NYR, Detroit will spend up to the cap and give the players the 55%, but what about all the other teams ??

For the Players to get their 55% ..

Team spending on salaries has to equal 55% of league revenues..

Or at least the Floor min and Ceiling would have to be within a small range .. If you set a Ceiling at 40 Mil and Floor at 35 Mil .. then the NHLPA would be assured of getting roughly 55% (based on last year numbers) ..

Obviously the 55% is the high number. The owners arent cheating the players if every team doesn't spend to the max either. Cant beleive you would imply this. Thats why they negotiate a floor that everyone must spend up to. If the max is 55% and the player salaries are only 53.5% boohoo cry me a river you bunch of millionairs. Of course theres taht escrow account that completely eliminates this hole thing about teams/owners "cheating" the players by not spending up to the max every year. Teams not spending up to the max should not create a drag on player salaries as the teams that do spend to the max will continue to keep that battle even. I definatly dont agree with the philosophy of b/c one team doesn't spend up to the max that another team is allowed to spend over the amount that was under spent by another club. I dont even agree with escrow account and beleive as long as theres a floor and a ceiling in regards to linkage then its a fair deal for both sides. They just need to agree on what that floor and cieling is.

There has to be some wiggle room for the GMs to work with. Incase of injuries and trades and what not. why max out at the $38.5 in september when you may end up with injuries on the club or need to make trades. Space between the salary floor and the ceiling is essential for the league to have "gauranteed" contracts. Of course injury replacemtn and call up salary will most likely be negotiated and may not even end up being part of the $38.5mil per team salary cap or it might be part of it.


The players are spoiled and dont know what a "fair deal" actually means. Heck they still beleive that if the NHL revenues are not high enough to pay there salaries then the Owners should dip into there other businesses or personal bank accounts to pay them there over inflated salaries. Talk about about not being in touch with reality let alone trying to sign a "fair deal". wow.. Then they have the nerve to insult the accounting profesion by saying that they cant track all the money that comes in and out of the NHL teams b/c an owner can make a million dollar profit look like a million dollar lose. please

I love how the players (some anyhow) feel as though they have the right to kill the NHL if they dont get there deal b/c they own it. Talk about a bunch of ego maniacs.

I hope the NHL locks out every NHLPA member this fall and brings in replacement players for the entire year. Not just part of the year but the entire year and doesn't let a single member of the PA play. It may not have the best talent in the world and is full of second tier talent but if you cant watch that 1st teir talent in comparison night in night out then that 2nd tier talent starts to look pretty good. The AHL has some pretty damn good hockey players playing in it that are entertaining and if they the NHL talent was sitting on there butts at home the AHL guys would look even better. IMHO.

 

[Mess]

When did the NHLPA try to work off the $42.5m cap? Show me where Goodenow was prepared to accept that number.

When did I say that? .. The NHLPA has rejected that proposal in its entirety on numerous occasions including the time it resulted in a cancelled season .. Negotiating OFF of and Accepting are two vastly different things in fact ..

The poster asked if the NHLPA tried to negotiate off that proposal .. Rumours existed that the NHLPA was possibly willing to make a proposal at 45.0 Mil if it could improve the NHL offer on some of the systemic issues ..

 

[Mess]

I hope the NHL locks out every NHLPA member this fall and brings in replacement players for the entire year. Not just part of the year but the entire year and doesn't let a single member of the PA play. It may not have the best talent in the world and is full of second tier talent but if you cant watch that 1st teir talent in comparison night in night out then that 2nd tier talent starts to look pretty good. The AHL has some pretty damn good hockey players playing in it that are entertaining and if they the NHL talent was sitting on there butts at home the AHL guys would look even better. IMHO.

I do as well ..because Real Hockey Fans will not fall for that Beer League Hockey for very long and that tactic will be a big mistake IMO ..

When it fails and it will fail .. The NHL will have lost all its POWER and have no choice but to come back to the NHLPA and get it real NHL players back ...

The NHL is in a much stronger position now then it would be in that case ..

The good thing will be that some Franchises will be lost and that only makes the NHL stronger ..

So I am with you bring on the replacements ..

 

[Phanuthier*]

I do as well ..because Real Hockey Fans will not fall for that Beer League Hockey for very long and that tactic will be a big mistake IMO ..

When it fails and it will fail .. The NHL will have lost all its POWER and have no choice but to come back to the NHLPA and get it real NHL players back ...

Might I turn your attention to the 2001-02 Flames roster:

McAmmond - Conroy - Iginla
Niedermayer - Savard - Clark
Nichol - Wilm - Wright
Lowry - Being - Petrovicky
Sloan, Shantz

Take out Iginla, Conroy and Savard and thats a replacement-type lineup right there. The Flames still averaged over 14,000 tickets.

Still think it'll happen?

And when the NHL loses all its power and has to go back to the NHLPA, then we're back to 12 teams and the NHLPA size just dropped from 700 to 276, meaning 424 jobs (or 61%) are unempolyed.

I'm sorry, how is it going to happen that the NHL will break before the NHLPA again?

 

[Phanuthier*]

In all fairness the NHLPA tried that .. That failed Saturday meeting that offended Gretz and Lemieux was all about negotiating the systemic issues of the 42.5 Final offer ..

Also after the NHL released the 42.5 mil FINAL OFFER .. the NHLPA countered twice at 52.0 Mil and 49.0 Mil to get the negotiating going .. The NHL really does not want to talk about anything ..

Not sure how you came up to your conclusions .. The NHLPA has made 3 attempts to work off the 42.5 Final offer ..

You also have a couple of Show stoppers you have not mentioned .. meaningful Revenue Sharing and a Hard Cap Floor(minimum) ...

Again, showing you just don't do your homework.

The NHL went from 31 million, to 38, to 40, to 42.5 (with linkage) then off linkage (40$ milion first, I believe) then to 42.5. So how didn't they move off the cap.

I can almost see black pots flying around your post. The difference between the proposals is the one spending the money had their breaking point (42.5 million) and the people making the money failed to realize that, gambled, and lost. Now, the game will come back in shambles, the NHL will return as a tier 2 sport, and salaries will have to be rolled back more and the salary cap is back to linkage with likely $35 million or less.

 

[Pepper]

Please people, all this stuff (which is very basic stuff btw) has been explained to The Messenger and other pro-PA yahoos a million times but they just want to keep trolling and bring back the same old arguments shot down months ago.

It's not worth the time, if they refuse to accept certain facts we can't really do anything about it.

 

[Hunter74]

Please people, all this stuff (which is very basic stuff btw) has been explained to The Messenger and other pro-PA yahoos a million times but they just want to keep trolling and bring back the same old arguments shot down months ago.

It's not worth the time, if they refuse to accept certain facts we can't really do anything about it.

Yeah I just had a laps for a minute and bam i replied.

 

[Russian Fan]

Please people, all this stuff (which is very basic stuff btw) has been explained to The Messenger and other pro-PA yahoos a million times but they just want to keep trolling and bring back the same old arguments shot down months ago.

It's not worth the time, if they refuse to accept certain facts we can't really do anything about it.

hmmm pro-PA Yahoos huh ?

Let's do a LETTERMAN TOP 10 of what you & so many others have said all along that you don't call that ''trolling'' or ''saying the same thing over & over again.

#10 ''Knob'' GoodenoUGH is not here for the players.

#9 Gary Bettman told it several times that he will help every team to pay the salaries.

#8 The players can go to hell, they are out of touch with reality.

#7A Owners have money, they can do this lockout FOREVER they can affort it

#7B Owners lost tons of money, they CANNOT afford to go back playing hockey.

#6 Gary Bettman is here to fix hockey (One of my best)

#5 They made (quotes from NHLCBANews.com to back every argument) all the proposals here except the 24% rollback which was stupid.

#4 The 42.5M$ was so generous because we all know it would act as a magnet. So it would be more than 55% of players salaries.

#3 The players are making a huge mistake. It's impossible that they will have a better deal than the last one 3 weeks ago.

#2 Bettman ''We want partnership with the players. It's for the good of the good of the game.''

Linden ''They want partnership with us but they don't want partnership with themselves''

#1 BRING ON THE SCABS !!!

We have a poll where most of the HF Boards would ''WATCH'' to see scabs. Like it matters or not if you watch it when it's FREE. & it won't matter also if they bring scabs @ 30$ the ticket !

WHO WOULD PAY 100$ to watch scabs ?