New Proposal: Just increase numbers

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by octopi, Feb 10, 2005.

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

    octopi Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    31,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the owners are trying to be sly with their new proposal as obviously one or more of those triggers for their hard cap system will be met. Fair enough. Add the numbers 2, 3, or 4 to every number in that proposal(except salary rollback), suddenly you've got something not as easily trigged and more palateable to players:

    Example: If three teams exceed 42 million dollars, they go to owners hard cap system.

    New version: (Add 4) If seven teams exceed 44(add 2) million dollars they go to hard cap system

    Old Version; If one of the trigger points is met, go to owners new system

    New Version: If three(add 2) of the trigger points are met , go to new system

    Sorry I don't have te proposal in front of me, but I think this could work . Owners won't hold themselves in check, so players will have to be responsible, Ex: Player Z will settle for 5 million instead of 6 million, because the extra money will trigger new system. Its a working soft cap. Sure Its not entirly fair to everybody, but whoever siad life was fair?
     
  2. Brewleaguer

    Brewleaguer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think what they need to add (players) is 'OK we then have a say where they play', if an offer is made to a player that would trigger the cap, that player is ineligible to sign with a particular team. Let the players police themselves to prevent any of these triggers from taking place.
     
  3. Funny thing is the owners would agree to that in a heartbeat but the players wouldn't.
     
  4. octopi

    octopi Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    31,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember that under the new system, 3 triggers have to be hit. I'm
    thinking the one that says only 33% difference between the bottom and top teams is a biggie though. I mean, I don't want to see a 90 million dollar team and 15-20 million dollar teams. Somehow they'd have to work it so nobody makes a mockey of it. Perhaps a definate
    hard cap at 65 million?
     
  5. Brewleaguer

    Brewleaguer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually any one can trigger them.
    -- If player compensation exceeds 55 percent of league-wide revenues.

    -- If the average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 percent higher than the average payroll of the league's three lowest spending teams.

    -- If three teams go over $42 million in player compensation.

    -- If the average compensation of the 30 teams exceeds $36.5 million.

    I agree with your concern about any three teams... that to me is pointing it's finger at certain teams, which I am sure you know who they are.

    This whole thing is starting to sound like a three way battle.... NHL vs NHLPA vs three top teams. :shakehead
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2005
  6. Brewleaguer

    Brewleaguer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess what I am saying is do the roll back as the players want, right from the start (not over 3 years) and toss in the cap triggers and let the PA police themselves.
     
  7. octopi

    octopi Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    31,547
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, I know any one can trigger it...what I was saying was a fictional proposal, in which 3 of 4 triggers would have to be hit. I thought the players might be more willing to look into that....

    Darnit...Give Me Hockey...Or Give Me Death!
    :banghead:
     
  8. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Still on hiatus

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    The owners have already decided what they want, and they're not backing down. Period. Had the NHLPA actually offered counter-proposals, the league would have to do some give-and-take. Instead, they've taken the pot of gold and are throwing pennies at the union trying to tease them into taking a deal that is fantastic for the owners and horrible for the players.

    Throw out the whole salary cap issue, if I'm a player I wouldn't have accepted the last proposal from the owners. I see *a lot* of taking, and little giving in return...even less giving when you consider the strings that are attached.

    Believe me, I'm not saying the players should get everything they want, but they're getting thrown crumbs while the owners are holding the 7-tiered cake.

    Back to the triggers....the owners and the players know perfectly well that at least one of those triggers will be set off once a regular season is played. The difference is, the owners think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the players if they dress the idea up to look nice enough.
     
  9. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    that is one interpretation . . .

    another might be that since the players have not moved an inch toward any sort of cost certainty and only played games in their two proposals the owners called them hypocrites by calling their Dec. 9th bluff.

    Come on, if you think that the owners are playing games with this proposal what was the 24% rollback that covered very few contracts and would be mostly off the books in one year and pretty much completely off the books in 2 years? What was the Dec. 9th proposal which they said would for sure control spending with a luxury tax and then backed off when called on it?

    The players have been playing games with the process from the start trying to be more 'clever' than make any real proposal. Well it serves them right to have it bite them in the a$$ to have the NHL make them out-clever themselves with that phony Dec. 9th proposal.
     
  10. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Still on hiatus

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    They've both been playing games - the union just made a stupid move by offering the 24% rollback b/c the league took it and ran with it, and figured if the union was going to give A they should also give B, C, D, .... and when the union failed to respond with a counter-proposal, the league figured, "Hey - they're not coming up with something different, so why should we offer to give that stuff back?"

    They're both to blame...but the NHLPA has only Goodenow to blame for the current mess b/c he blinked hard, whether it was for the sake of trying to look like they were doing something meaningful or not. The players got backed into a corner with their offer, and they've done nothing to try and get out of that corner since.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"