NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Icey said:
And I just can't see the owners taking that risk.

Well if the owners don't want to take that risk, everybody better figure something out quickly because the courts forcing them to play under the old CBA is clearly an option.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
Schlep Rock said:
Well if the owners don't want to take that risk, everybody better figure something out quickly because the courts forcing them to play under the old CBA is clearly an option.

So are the courts implementing a $2million dollar cap. Both very unrealistic.
 

mackdogs*

Guest
This is just saddening... the PA could not have expected a better deal. Everyone knew it was going below 42.5.

I guess the PA will counter with a soft 47'ish cap with the ability to go over for a couple years. God, this is never going to end. :banghead: :banghead:
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Schlep Rock said:
Well if the owners don't want to take that risk, everybody better figure something out quickly because the courts forcing them to play under the old CBA is clearly an option.
The NHL would then need to prove that they can't which would force them to open their books to the courts, I would guess. Depending on whether you believe that they are telling the truth or just lying to improve profit margins that will be good or bad for them.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
mackdogs said:
This is just saddening... the PA could not have expected a better deal. Everyone knew it was going below 42.5.

I guess the PA will counter with a soft 47'ish cap with the ability to go over for a couple years. God, this is never going to end. :banghead: :banghead:

Obviously, the PA expects a better deal. Why they would decline a deal, lose another $700M+ if they thought it was the better deal they'd get?
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Smail said:
Obviously, the PA expects a better deal. Why they would decline a deal, lose another $700M+ if they thought it was the better deal they'd get?

Sadly because I believe many of them really could afford to sit out another year. If it was about getting the most money, they would have at least had a vote among the players last month. The price of the 'better deal' can only increase.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
Shainsaw said:
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.

This is exactly my read of the situation as well.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Smail said:
Obviously, the PA expects a better deal. Why they would decline a deal, lose another $700M+ if they thought it was the better deal they'd get?

Well they would have saved a ****load of money if the expected to get a better deal, everyone (neutral observers included) have said that PA will never get more than 42.5M
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
You have to understand too though, that many of the athletes live according to their payrolls. So they are spending the millions that they make. So... They have payments to make just like the rest of us. So, I would suggest that the majority of the PA is now feeling the effects of no paychecks for a good year. With the exception of the NHLPA compensations.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
i question the validity of the owners declaring an impasse now, and the nlrb upholding it, as it appears that they are now offering less then they previously offered.

it would seem to me that any corporation negotiating in such a manner is bad faith. i'm by no means well versed in this area, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

it'll be interesting if the " take this now, or it'll only get worse in the future type negotiating" is upheld by the nlrb if it gets that far.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Scugs said:
So are the courts implementing a $2million dollar cap. Both very unrealistic.

What? The courts of course can force them to play under the old CBA until a new one is reached. "Return Nov. 1 to report progress"
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
Scugs said:
You have to understand too though, that many of the athletes live according to their payrolls. So they are spending the millions that they make. So... They have payments to make just like the rest of us. So, I would suggest that the majority of the PA is now feeling the effects of no paychecks for a good year. With the exception of the NHLPA compensations.

I would hope so (to get the process moving). But even if they were to settle this week they would not see a pay check until the fall. i.e. little or no immediate pressure to come to an agreement.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
hawker14 said:
i question the validity of the owners declaring an impasse now, and the nlrb upholding it, as it appears that they are now offering less then they previously offered.

it would seem to me that any corporation negotiating in such a manner is bad faith. i'm by no means well versed in this area, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

it'll be interesting if the " take this now, or it'll only get worse in the future type negotiating" is upheld by the nlrb if it gets that far.

I would think that the NLRB would take into consideration that the owners are making offers according to their current income. Which right now is $0.00

They can only offer as much as they can afford. With the cancellation of the season, the revenue of the NHL dropped dramatically.
 

chiavsfan

Registered User
i question the validity of the owners declaring an impasse now, and the nlrb upholding it, as it appears that they are now offering less then they previously offered.

This was the dumbest statement I have ever read. Of course they are going to offer less, they said as much during the little fox exchange the night before the season was cencelled. You can't offer a higer cap number when the revenues aren't going to be near the same.

I am just waiting for the PA to come up with a proposal, present it to the NHL then reject it themselves...oh wait, didn't that already happen?
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
chiavsfan said:
This was the dumbest statement I have ever read. Of course they are going to offer less, they said as much during the little fox exchange the night before the season was cencelled. You can't offer a higer cap number when the revenues aren't going to be near the same.

I am just waiting for the PA to come up with a proposal, present it to the NHL then reject it themselves...oh wait, didn't that already happen?

Why would they lower the percentage too?
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Scugs said:
I would think that the NLRB would take into consideration that the owners are making offers according to their current income. Which right now is $0.00

They can only offer as much as they can afford. With the cancellation of the season, the revenue of the NHL dropped dramatically.

yes, but this happens in most industries. the parties must still negotiate in good faith.

my question is if the nlrb ultimately needs to decide on the validity of an impasse, they will see that the owners offered a salary cap of $ 42.5 million per team, while the players countered at $ 49 million.

for the nhl to return to negotiations with a regressive offer of $ 37.5 million appears to me to be bad faith. no one forced the owners to go to $ 42.5 million, but once they did, i think with this regressive offer i think the nlrb may see them negotiating in bad faith.

i also feel the same way if the NHLPA came back with a salary cap number of $ 54 million. if the nhlpa comes back with a number of $ 49 million or under, and the league sticks to their regressive number of $ 37 million, i just don't think they've made a strong case for impasse.

i still believe a cap around $ 45 million is the magic number. the owners backing off from their $ 42.5 million appears that they are not interested in negotiating.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Schlep Rock said:
What? The courts of course can force them to play under the old CBA until a new one is reached. "Return Nov. 1 to report progress"
Can the courts force the league to operate under conditions where they lose money while doing it?
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
chiavsfan said:
This was the dumbest statement I have ever read. Of course they are going to offer less, they said as much during the little fox exchange the night before the season was cencelled. You can't offer a higer cap number when the revenues aren't going to be near the same.

I am just waiting for the PA to come up with a proposal, present it to the NHL then reject it themselves...oh wait, didn't that already happen?

sorry you find it dumb since it's not 100% blindly in support of owners. i can live with criticism.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Schlep Rock said:
What? The courts of course can force them to play under the old CBA until a new one is reached. "Return Nov. 1 to report progress"

Once again, the courts can't force the NHL to operate under the old CBA. They can reject the impasse, but the NHL owners could then resume the lockout.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
mooseOAK said:
Can the courts force the league to operate under conditions where they lose money while doing it?

Of course they can... the arguement the NHLPA would have to provide is: the owners created their red ink. If they can prove it, of course the courts can!
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
hawker14 said:
i still believe a cap around $ 45 million is the magic number. the owners backing off from their $ 42.5 million appears that they are not interested in negotiating.

The NHL made it clear thast 42.5 was a stretch. And that Bettman went there to try and get a deal done to save the season.

If anyone is going to be accused of negotiating in bad faith, look at the NHLPA.

-Rejecting its own proposal.
-Sitting back and letting one side negotiate with itself.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Smail said:
Once again, the courts can't force the NHL to operate under the old CBA. They can reject the impasse, but the NHL owners could then resume the lockout.

My understanding of the law and prior labor situations, they can. It's up to the NHLPA to prove the owners are the reason for the red ink.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Smail said:
Once again, the courts can't force the NHL to operate under the old CBA. They can reject the impasse, but the NHL owners could then resume the lockout.

Just to clarify, the impasse would go before the NLRB, not the court system.

Forcing them to play under the old CBA would be a court issue, not a NLRB issue (at least to my knowledge).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->