NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

The Fan 590 just reported that the NHLPA has rejected two more salary cap proposals, and that the union is now "considering its next steps."


(EDIT: I changed the thread title to more accurately reflect what we know so far, rather than use what the Fan 590 offered as their interpretation.)

Click to read more...

 

[chiavsfan]

They didn't even have a first step...what "next steps" could they possible have?

 

[blamebettman*]

what were the figures?

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

TSN now reporting on this:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

Daly's statement indicates that the union deferred responding until they have internal discussions over the next week. Goodenow's statement doesn't quite have the same tone... basically sounds like he doesn't intend to consider these proposals.

 

[RangerBoy]

$37.5 million hard cap vs $42.5 million hard cap

 

[Icey]

The Fan 590 just reported that the NHLPA has rejected two more salary cap proposals, and that the union is now "considering its next steps."

This is Daley's statement. How does this say they rejected the offers? Sounds like they are looking at them and will get back to the league

"We made another collective bargaining proposal today which offered the Union a choice of two approaches for moving forward," Daly said. "The first proposal was based on the 'de-linked' salary cap framework that was on the table when the season was cancelled in mid-February. We indicated that to the extent this was a framework that the Union remained interested in pursuing, the League would be prepared to continue negotiations -- provided an agreement could be achieved within the next several weeks.

"Alternatively, we proposed a negotiated relationship between total Player Compensation and League-wide revenues, which we made clear was our preference.


"The Union deferred responding to our new proposal, pending internal discussions it intends to conduct over the next week. We will have no further comment at this time regarding the precise details of our proposal."

 

[mooseOAK*]

TSN now reporting on this:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

Was Goodenow actually expecting a better offer after the season was cancelled with what everyone knows will result in lower revenues for the league?

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

The article indicates that the two options were 37.5 hard/de-linked or linkage at 54%.

 

[Sanderson]

The concepts and numbers aren't really surprising.

The most important information is missing: What else was in the offers?
We likely won't get any information about that, but it surely would be interesting to know what kind of changes they made in points like arbitration, etc.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

This is Daley's statement. How does this say they rejected the offers? Sounds like they are looking at them and will get back to the league

I thought the same thing. Hard to know exactly how to interpret it all. Goodenow's statement sounds different, though.

 

[Shainsaw]

This really sounds like they are preparing for an impasse. They know the NHLPA won't take either of these offers but they don't want to get stuck with the 42MIL offer when they decalre an impasse. If the NHLPA rejects this I would expect one more offer from the NHL right before impasse at about 35Mil.

 

[Scoogs]

I can't wait to hear the NHLPA's rejection statement. They are expecting to get MORE than before? Someone really needs to smack some sense into the PA. They are waiting for a package that is never going to arrive. That being, no linkage, and basically a very high cap. ($49 or above)

The NHL is forced to negotiate with itself, and the PA is going to be surprised when April 20th rolls around.

You can sure bet that the PA called the owners bluff back in mid February. They didnt really think that the owners would cancel the season, would they?? So they took a half assed approach and sat back until the last second when it was clear that the owners werent joking. Then they said "Hey, we offered a fair proposal and they rejected it."

I hope that this time they take this April 20th date seriously. Because if they dont, its going to be deja vu for the NHLPA.

 

[RangerBoy]

What is Bob Goodenow's exit strategy?

 

[SENSible1*]

What is Bob Goodenow's exit strategy?

Win in court or have replacement players flop.

We have no say in court, but as fans we can ensure that he loses on the second count.

 

[Digger12]

Obviously the PA will reject these proposals out of hand, interesting (perhaps I'm reading too much into it?) that Goodenow characterized them as 'salary cap' proposals...so are we back to the PA not wanting a salary cap anymore?

What I'll be curious to see is if the PA comes back with even a hint of a counter-proposal.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

I can't wait to hear the NHLPA's rejection statement. They are expecting to get MORE than before? Someone really needs to smack some sense into the PA. They are waiting for a package that is never going to arrive. That being, no linkage, and basically a very high cap. ($49 or above)

The NHL is forced to negotiate with itself, and the PA is going to be surprised when April 20th rolls around.

You can sure bet that the PA called the owners bluff back in mid February. They didnt really think that the owners would cancel the season, would they?? So they took a half assed approach and sat back until the last second when it was clear that the owners werent joking. Then they said "Hey, we offered a fair proposal and they rejected it."

I hope that this time they take this April 20th date seriously. Because if they dont, its going to be deja vu for the NHLPA.

Why can't you leaf fans speak english!

It is baffling though, the PA must be thinking that replacement players will blow up on the NHL and they will come crawling back.
It's all so freaking stoooopid

 

[mooseOAK*]

Win in court or have replacement players flop.

We have no say in court, but as fans we can ensure that he loses on the second count.

Can the courts force teams to pay more money than they can afford, from hockey revenues that is. Or, impose higher revenue sharing so that there is more money for the players?

I don't know what the goal of a court action by the NHLPA would be.

 

[SENSible1*]

Can the courts force teams to pay more money than they can afford, from hockey revenues that is. Or, impose higher revenue sharing so that there is more money for the players?

I don't know what the goal of a court action by the NHLPA would be.

A non-capped, non-linked CBA based on the previous agreement?

I don't believe revenue sharing can be forced by the courts, but if one of our legal experts has information on the subject I'll be glad to see it.

 

[futurcorerock]

$37.5 million hard cap vs $42.5 million hard cap

February 19th vs. March 17th

 

[Timmy]

Can the courts force teams to pay more money than they can afford, from hockey revenues that is. Or, impose higher revenue sharing so that there is more money for the players?

I don't know what the goal of a court action by the NHLPA would be.

The goal of a court action would be to block the NHL from using replacement players, effectively forcing the owners back to the bargaining table if they want hockey for 05-06.

 

[Timmy]

A non-capped, non-linked CBA based on the previous agreement?

I don't believe revenue sharing can be forced by the courts, but if one of our legal experts has information on the subject I'll be glad to see it.

I stand to be corrected, but the greatest victory for the NHLPA would be the owners being forced to play under the old CBA until a new was was agreed upon.

 

[Chili]

So it sounds as though they are getting further apart rather than closer together (which is no surprise).

I always try to be optimistic but after what seems like years of this rhetoric it's getting tough.

Is there any hope whatsoever that Bettman and Goodenow will ever reach a negotiated settlement?

I can't remember who said it now but I do remember hearing someone saying the two same guys negotiating consectutive deals often spells trouble because one or both are trying to make up for their mistakes in the prior deal.

It's looking like it could get ugly.

 

[Icey]

I stand to be corrected, but the greatest victory for the NHLPA would be the owners being forced to play under the old CBA until a new was was agreed upon.

And I just can't see the owners taking that risk.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I stand to be corrected, but the greatest victory for the NHLPA would be the owners being forced to play under the old CBA until a new was was agreed upon.

The owners wouldn't be "forced". They could resume the lockout.