Melnyk: Let the players vote

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Mess, Feb 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,064
    Likes Received:
    812
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Melnyk: Let the players vote
    TSN.ca Staff
    2/14/2005

    Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk thinks he has a solution for the NHL lockout: Let the players vote.


    According to a report in the Globe and Mail, Melnyk thinks that the majority of NHL players would agree to play under a salary cap, saying, "I think the best solution would be to get these 700 guys in a rink somewhere and get them to vote on this, individually and confidentially. I think you'd be absolutely shocked at what comes back."


    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=114913&hubName=nhl


    NHLPA response ..Give us something to vote on and we might bother ..
     
  2. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,830
    Likes Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    Exactly

    The NHL should put a comprehensive final offer to paper and the NHLPA should let the players vote on it.

    IF they turn it down so be it and the season is toast. But if they accept it, they can get back to playing hockey. The impact of a lost season is going to be devastating financially for all.
     
  3. The Flash

    The Flash Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Paid to Talk
    Location:
    Korea (South of Cour
    Home Page:
    You know.. I don't even see it getting to that point. Melnyk was grandstanding for the fans knowing that he is in a no-lose position with this proposition. But at least he is trying to do something.
     
  4. EricBowser

    EricBowser Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Customer/Technical Support
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    There are two things the NHL must do before I side with them completely.

    1. Document the revenue-sharing plan

    2. Tell the NHLPA and public, this is our best and final offer, if a vote isn't called or majority vote by membership vetoes the proposal, then have no other choice than to declare an impasse to protect our business and future of the sport.
     
  5. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    NHLPA response ..Give us something to vote on and we might bother ..[/QUOTE]

    You mean like securing a future that guarantee's players an average salary over 1 million and actually takes the fans and associated employees and businesses into consideration?

    You mean like allowing owners to set a pre-determined budget and running their business operations in a more financially responsible manner?

    You mean like working in a place of business where you are treated 1st class in all aspects of life even though the average player has a high school education?

    I could go on and on and on.
     
  6. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Of that I have little doubt. ;)
     
  7. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Once the league has established that there is no deal to be made (and that won't happen until some time after the cancellation of the season has been announced) then I think you can expect them to put a full CBA offer forward and call for a vote from the PA. It will have enough sugar to elicit the break in the PA they are hoping for, with the goal of ridding themselves of Goodenow hopefully being accomplished.
     
  8. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    What the players need to vote on is if they accept a salary cap or not. If the answer is 'NO CAP, EVER', then there is no point in talking at this time. If the answer is 'YES, WE WILL PLAY UNDER A CAP', the rest can be negotiated. The players do not need a full proposal to conduct a vote on one the single concept that is holding up a settlement.
     
  9. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    The players need a chance to vote. Cause if there is an impasse and a stike called by the union the members will have the choice to cross the picket lines then. So mine as well give them that choice now and maybe save this season.
     
  10. gerbilanium

    gerbilanium Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought the Senators did not want a salary cap since they are rolling with the big boys now.
     
  11. Other Dave

    Other Dave Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Academic administration
    Location:
    New and improved in TO
    Home Page:
    I'm confused. I thought the players already voted.
     
  12. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    How About This

    How about the owner's vote. Away from Bettman and all other pressure from the board to be "united", why don't the owner's organize a way to try and surpase the 22 votes needed. I am sure that 2/3 of owner's would not mind playing under a system that does not involve linkage and a hard cap. These players are in a vulnerable position and some would be willing to play for 300k/year at this point. Some of these billionair owner's are just trying to make of these investments that Bettman promised them for buying franchises seasons ago when the league was going under. I am sure the majority of owner's want to start playing under a tax or soft cap. This vote will also prove that this lockout is only for 8 teams at this point, those of which may not survive under anything but a cap. Well it's time for everyone to wake up and realize that 6 or 7 of those 8 teams should not even be in existance. I'm sorry because I'm sure there are Carolina fans, and Florida fans (maybe) and Anaheim fans out there, but right now we are all frustrated at you because we know this lockout since December, has been because of you and it's flat out RIDICULOUS.
     
  13. Bauer83

    Bauer83 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    '

    If you honestly think this lockout is about 8 teams, then you are drinking way too much of the NHLPA kool-aid. It is more like there are 8 teams that would have loved to have continued to play, and the rest were all in favor of shutting down. Give me a break, with the amount of teams that have lost money the past few years, there is most certainly 20 teams that will promote shutting down. If this wasn't the case, we would not be here now. Do remember, the owners were the ones that gave Bettman this power for a reason, and it did not just take 8 votes to give it to him.
     
  14. ladybugblue

    ladybugblue Registered User

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Graduate student
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    You don't think they have already done this and just not made it public? It is much easier to see where the owners are at since it is a smaller group. It isn't just for Carloina but for the Edmonton's, Pittsburgh, Calgary teams and they have a strong history in this league and still deserve to be there whether you think so or not.
     
  15. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,830
    Likes Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    The owner's votes are trickier. They aren't about accepting terms of employment but quite possibly the existance of their franchise. Two different kettles of fish, imo.
     
  16. I think you would be incorrect in your assumptions. Mike Ilitch, Tom Hicks, Ed Snyder, Philip Anschutz, Eugene Melnyck, Peter Karmanos, Al Cohen, Cal Nichol, Steve Belkin and Ted Leonsis have all made public comments in the recent past in regards to their desires in attaining cost certainty and a salary cap. Four of those owners are from the large markets that are supposedly desperate to get back onto the ice. That is 1/3 of the ownership against the premise you promote and have discussed specifics to their own situation as to why they need linkage. Anything could happen, but I think the premise that 2/3 would vote in favor of a deal not including linkage or a hardcap is not realistic. The owners actions speak louder than their words and by going all the way to the point where they are without any signs of discent in the group shows they are not going to break. I've been expecting them to roll over, but they have not. On the other hand, the players have been doing and saying all the things you expect from a side that is not unified in my opinion. I think a vote is close for the players. I think its a landslide on the owners side.
     
  17. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Name the 20 teams you think would vote to play under a system that does not involve a cap. What you seems to be missing, is, in the long run, all 30 owners will make more under a cap than they would without one so no owner is totally opposed to a cap. Would the most of the owners be willing to start playing under a luxury tax or a soft cap? My guess is yes, if the tax/soft cap had enough teeth in it to actually curb salary inflation. No such offer has been made by the PA, whose members are still running around shouting they will never play under a cap.

    If you think there are more teams that would benefit from playing the next 8 years without any meaningful way to curb salaries than there are teams than see the need for a salary cap, name them...and state why you think each falls into that category.
     
  18. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Add the Avs owner, Stan Kroenke, to that list. He spoke of needing a salary cap back when he bought the team...and continued to advocate 'cost certainty' as time went on. Kroenke also owns the Nuggets and is a minority owner of an NFL franchise both of which operate under a cap...
     
  19. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Add Gillett in Montreal to that list also...
     
  20. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    There's no doubt in my mind that many owners WANT it, but do those owners that reside in "hockey cities" NEED it?...Well, Yes, there are a few teams that have a storied history and reside in hockey cities that need a hard cap to stay alive...but it's the percentage of "hockey city" teams that NEED a hard cap at 40 mil that bothers me about this...
     
  21. What bothers you about that? That the revenues in hockey are not supporting the salary demands of the players? Or that the players have been over-paid for a good number of years and that the league, which survives on ticket sales, is realizing that continued growth in player salaries will in the end cost the league numerous franchises and in the long run the whole league?
     
  22. likea

    likea Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    can we find quotes for every team that said they need cost certainty

    the Penguins

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05043/456684.stm
     
  23. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Again, name the teams. Leafs. Rangers. Flyers. Wings. It is a short list.

    My guess way back last year was that a cap would fall in the 45M range...and I still think the owners would settle for that, if it were hard cap that the NHLPA could not exploit. I am very wary of soft caps because they seem to be loophole prone. A luxury tax would have to have heavy duty teeth to be a viable alternative. But then, I believe the NHL would be a healthier league if it played under a system that allowed most of the owners to make a profit on their investments most of the time.
     
  24. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay so if the rumor of a PA proposal today is true, and they propose a soft cap that will curb salary inflation on top of all the inflationary things they have already given up (QO, arbitration),do you think the owners should vote the same way you think the players should vote if they were proposed a hard cap?
     
  25. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    First, the players have given up nothing so far. The QOs and arbitration are still on the table. If the players offer a soft cap with no loopholes (franchise player, etc) in the 40M range with meaningful (dollar for dollar) penalties for exceeding it, that might tempt the owners.

    As far as a vote goes...there are only 30 owners...and most of them probably talk to Bettman or one of his crew daily as well as talking to their counterparts. I would guess that each owner could come very close to guessing how every other owner would vote on a given proposal.

    But what we are talking about here and what I said the players should vote on are two different things. You are talking about the owners voting on a specific proposal. I am talking about the players voting on accepting the concept of a cap...basically, voting on the framework for negotiations. The owners did that a long time ago by voting to give Bettman his super-majority powers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"