NHL.com has new proposal posted

[Brodeur]

I read the full proposal and the comparison to the last one.
Honestly, I like it. If the players walk away, they are fools. Plain and simple. It is not going to get much better than this. There is not much, if any, more that I see the league compromising on. At this point, they are just wasting away salary and careers. The league has made the specific framework they will take very clear. Don't like it? Go play in Europe.

If I were the NHLPA, I would renegotiate the rollback into something smaller like 10-15% across the board if I'm accepting a cap. I also ask for free agency to be moved down to 28 instead of 30. The max length clause could either be extended to 4/5 years, or removed altogether.

That said, I'm not on the NHLPA's side or the owner's side. I just want to see some damn hockey.

 

[officeglen]

Hard to believe the NHLPA would accept this "framework" as a basis for proceeding.

"Profit Sharing ... to be negotiated" - certainly excess revenue sharing may work, but players will never see any sharing of net profits. For example if the Leafs have $110 in revenue, pay $42M to the players, $40 in other expenses, assign $4M to profit, give $4M to small market teams, then the remaining $20M could be split owners/players. However if net profit, the Leafs will simply have the ACC charge an additional $20M in rental costs, and the players get nothing.

"Payroll Tax" - you can have one, but it stays within the cap ("Floating Team Payroll Range").

"CLUB REVENUES" - No discussion on how club revenues would be handled with fully or semi-integrated entities, such as The Company owns five Subsidiaries: TV Network, Arena, Parking of Arena, Food Services of Arena, and Hockey Club. Now the first four are arranged to pay relatively little to the last one, and those "club revenues" stay small, so the "Floating Team Payroll Range" stays small. It doesn't matter if one has a third party audit of the Hockey Club, if one can't look at the total picture.

Don't stay up waiting for a deal.

 

[craig1]

If I were the NHLPA, I would renegotiate the rollback into something smaller like 10-15% across the board if I'm accepting a cap. I also ask for free agency to be moved down to 28 instead of 30. The max length clause could either be extended to 4/5 years, or removed altogether.

That said, I'm not on the NHLPA's side or the owner's side. I just want to see some damn hockey.

LOL...That's the best part! If the NHLPA tried to do that, it would seem that they were working backwards and giving less than they were originally willing to! Great move by the NHL to accept that outright! NHL wins that move on the chessboard. Totally blew up in Goodenow's face! They can't reasonably remove that from negotiations now.

 

[i am dave]

However if net profit, the Leafs will simply have the ACC charge an additional $20M in rental costs, and the players get nothing.

That's probably illegal.

 

[shakes]

LOL...That's the best part! If the NHLPA tried to do that, it would seem that they were working backwards and giving less than they were originally willing to! Great move by the NHL to accept that outright! NHL wins that move on the chessboard. Totally blew up in Goodenow's face! They can't reasonably remove that from negotiations now.

What are you talking about? Of course they can. "You want the rollback, get rid of the cap.. No? Then the rollback is off the table"

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[ti-vite]

Union's offer of 24% across-the-board Salary Rollback for all remaining years of all existing contracts is accepted.

I imagine Bettman grinning while typing that last line out...

 

[John Flyers Fan]

So what we have here is

#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

 

[Jakomyte]

"CLUB REVENUES" - No discussion on how club revenues would be handled with fully or semi-integrated entities, such as The Company owns five Subsidiaries: TV Network, Arena, Parking of Arena, Food Services of Arena, and Hockey Club. Now the first four are arranged to pay relatively little to the last one, and those "club revenues" stay small, so the "Floating Team Payroll Range" stays small. It doesn't matter if one has a third party audit of the Hockey Club, if one can't look at the total picture.

Don't stay up waiting for a deal.

I highly doubt that the NHL and the NHLPA would go through the trouble of mutually picking a 3rd party auditor without having already decided what the borders of hockey revenues are for each team. I'm sure that theu will be able to determine what should count toward hockey revenues and not for all teams and each team's situation before the audit begins. As menitonned in the deal, there is a hefty price if an owner tries to duck out of this system, millions and 1st rounders in fines. I highly doubt that the NHL would risk running into a situation where the NHLPA finds out that they were 'tricked'. The NHL is smart enough to know they can't afford to lose the trust of the NHLPA any more than it has already.

 

[ti-vite]

#9 probably stings a bit...

 

[Benji Frank]

There's several parts where I think the players will counter and then we'll have a deal:

RFA - 2 weeks to sign or your toast for the year .... will be scrapped

Contract length - 3 years max. .... scrapped

Rookie bonuses - 1st few picks will get a higher signing bonus. Maybe even shroten the 4 year term for first rounders like Crosby, etc. The way Russia's handing out money, they could go there for more..... esp. once the NHL starts up again and Russia's looking for names......

UFA - 30 ... probably come down to 27 or 28.

payroll tax ... kick in @ 42 mill hard cap @ 50 mill....

It also wouldn't surprise me if they shorten the playoffs and increase the season length for this year so the players can earn an extra cheque or two playing & bottom-end owners can earn some more revenues ... you'd hope all teams could stay in the running for a 40 game sched. & keep the buldings full & then maybe shorten the first couple of rounds to best of 3's or 5's.......

I'm not Eklund or Colin Mackenzie with inside info ... these are just thoughts that jumped out at me while skimming the proposal @ nhl.com.....

 

[shakes]

So what we have here is

#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitartion now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitartion altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

Yeah, the players would be crazy not to accept this deal... :lol

 

[X0ssbar]

Hard to believe the NHLPA would accept this "framework" as a basis for proceeding.

"Profit Sharing ... to be negotiated" - certainly excess revenue sharing may work, but players will never see any sharing of net profits. For example if the Leafs have $110 in revenue, pay $42M to the players, $40 in other expenses, assign $4M to profit, give $4M to small market teams, then the remaining $20M could be split owners/players. However if net profit, the Leafs will simply have the ACC charge an additional $20M in rental costs, and the players get nothing.

"Payroll Tax" - you can have one, but it stays within the cap ("Floating Team Payroll Range").

"CLUB REVENUES" - No discussion on how club revenues would be handled with fully or semi-integrated entities, such as The Company owns five Subsidiaries: TV Network, Arena, Parking of Arena, Food Services of Arena, and Hockey Club. Now the first four are arranged to pay relatively little to the last one, and those "club revenues" stay small, so the "Floating Team Payroll Range" stays small. It doesn't matter if one has a third party audit of the Hockey Club, if one can't look at the total picture.

Don't stay up waiting for a deal.

All those points you made are negotiable. The key is for the NHLPA to accept the framework (Floating Team Payroll Range) - once that framework is agreed upon everything else will be negotiated including the actual min/max of the payroll range.

With that said - I'm not holding my breath that the NHLPA will accept this framework.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

So what we have here is

#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitartion now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitartion altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

The players should counter this proposal instead of flat out rejecting it. I'm more on the players side in this than the owners but this isn't the worst offer in the world. Things can be tweaked.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

#4. No profit sharing details

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=JCHEBKGCFJGD?content=20050202_115722_4956

5. A profit-sharing plan pursuant to which the Players would share in League profitability over a negotiated level on a 50/50 basis;

 

[X0ssbar]

So what we have here is

#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

Again - the only thing that matters right now is #1 on your list. Once/if the NHLPA gets past the idea of hard cap/cost certainty/floating team payroll range then everything else is negotiable.

Until that point, the NHL could list that all players will receive their own island of choice in the Carribean if they make the all-star game and it wouldn't matter.

 

[Coffey77]

So what we have here is

#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus

but hey the players get

#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue

So true.

In negotiations BOTH sides have to give up stuff. Some people don't see that at all. Some people are thinking "Hey I'd play in the NHL for $100,000 so they should too". if I were the NHL I'd want a cap or cost certainty but I know I'd have to give up something somewhere else. I just don't see the NHL giving up something in return to the players for accepting a cap.

 

[Bauer83]

Got hand it to the NHL, whatever they like in the PA proposals they just throw into their proposals.

PA wanted a luxuxry tax instead of a hard cap. Owners use both
PA gave 24% back without a hard cap. Owners throw in rollback in their hard cap proposal.

Isn't that the exact point of negogiations and counter-proposals. Is this just not common sense to anyone else? It might not sell the union, but that is how negogiating works. You take the parts you like from what they are offering, and then you offer up what you want. Then they take what you wanted, and change it around to what they want.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=JCHEBKGCFJGD?content=20050202_115722_4956

5. A profit-sharing plan pursuant to which the Players would share in League profitability over a negotiated level on a 50/50 basis;

50/50 of what ??? The NHL threw it out there, but is it 50/50 of all profits .. over $50 million ... 200 million ???

It's just like the revenue sharing plan ... no details.

Plenty of details about the salary range, and arbitration system, but amazingly no details on the revenue sharing or profit sharing ...... must have been an oversight .

 

[kremlin]

Personally, I think the owners are being a bit too generous. It's still a good deal for both sides, but I think the owners could have tried for a little bit more.

I second that

 

[Peter]

Three of the factors for increased salaries have all been eliminated in this NHL proposal.

1) Salary arbitration has its teeth kicked in and made, IMO, fairer to both sides.

2) No more hold-outs. The "hold out" or "holding of breath" as I like to call it was one of the major reasons salaries have sky-rocketed. It is easy for the agents and players to say: "well you didn't have to pay me all that money" but that is baloney. The owners and GM's would be creamed in their local town if they were not able to keep their star players - it always is a PR nightmare for teams who let their star players go to other teams.

3) Nice hard cap on entry level salaries.

IMO, with these three things in place there is no need for a cap or a luxury cap. If I were the NHLPA I would agree to these three points, toss in the 24% roll backs and we have a deal.

 

[Brodeur]

LOL...That's the best part! If the NHLPA tried to do that, it would seem that they were working backwards and giving less than they were originally willing to! Great move by the NHL to accept that outright! NHL wins that move on the chessboard. Totally blew up in Goodenow's face! They can't reasonably remove that from negotiations now.

I'd be so utterly pissed if I were negotiating for the NHLPA right now. I posted the existing contract figures yesterday, and the thing I noticed was that a ton of contracts expire after this season.

Let's just say a full NHL roster is 23 players, so 23 players x 30 teams is 690 players. 592 players had contracts for 2004-05, 85.8%. On the otherhand, only 288 already have contracts for 2005-06, 41.7%. An even smaller amount have deals beyond.

I'm not 100% sure, but I was under the impression that players won't get paid for this year. So the 24% rollback would only immediately affect less than half the players for the 2005-06 season. The trickle down effect would be the theoretical resetting of the marketplace back by 24%. But knowing certain GMs and agents, I'm sure the most players could get contract terms similar to the ones they had been getting.

 

[red devil]

50/50 of what ??? The NHL threw it out there, but is it 50/50 of all profits .. over $50 million ... 200 million ???

It's just like the revenue sharing plan ... no details.

Plenty of details about the salary range, and arbitration system, but amazingly no details on the revenue sharing or profit sharing ...... must have been an oversight .

The profit sharing threshold is to be negotiated.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Again - the only thing that matters right now is #1 on your list. Once/if the NHLPA gets past the idea of hard cap/cost certainty/floating team payroll range then everything else is negotiable.

Until that point, the NHL could list that all players will receive their own island of choice in the Carribean if they make the all-star game and it wouldn't matter.

If that was actually true, and to this point I have seen no reason to believe it is, why doesn't the NHL make the offer witht the hard cap, and get rid of the rest ???

If the NHL gets a hard cap, none of the other stuff should matter to them at all.

 

[Dr Love]

So what we have here is

...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

 

[Morbo]

There's no way in hell the players will accept this.

Goodbye season.