NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

[blamebettman*]

Then they will be looking for work in Murmansk again.......

If find the following scenario particularly funny - the owners declare impasse and invite a hoard of non-NHLPA Euros to play in the NHL next year. I can hear the NHLPA whine about scabs and then being reminded about how they floated off to Europe to put Euro players out of a job this season - the payback would be sweet baby.

that would be kind of difficult considering non NHLPA euros would have already signed contracts to play elsewhere by then. Your best bet would probably raiding the lowest of the low euro league. half those guys would probably stick around for 2 weeks and get homesick anyway.

 

[RangerBoy]

They (NLRB) ruled the the CBA that Baseball put in place during impasse was not done based on Good Faith bargaining and too restrictive in its content with is Hard Cap System.. It ruled it invalid and re-installed the old CBA .. but ordered the teams back to the bargaining table .. The NHL could again take the lockout stance and not lose money ,and continue to bargain .. In baseball the League did not get its hard cap but agreed with the PA on a luxuary Soft cap system ..

For a good read on all the Salary caps in Pro sports of the big 4 see the link ..

http://stats.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/spring1998art1.pdf

Baseball got the luxury tax system 7-8 YEARS after the 1994/1995 baseball strike.From 1995-2002,there was no luxury tax in MLB.Don Fehr and Gene Orza agreed to a luxury tax system in August 2002

 

[gerbilanium]

Why do you guys think the NLRB will be impartial and unbiased.

Read this article to see that the NLRB has had significant changes since Bill Clinton.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/voiceatwork/ns01132005.cfm

Recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—now controlled by President George W. Bush’s appointees—also have begun to erode the legal guarantees of private-sector workers to form unions....

In 2004, the Bush-controlled NLRB effectively eliminated the rights of temporary agency workers to win a voice on the job; ruled that graduate employees are not protected by federal labor law; and began to review rules regarding majority sign-up (card-check) procedures, which enable workers to more fairly and quickly indicate whether they want a union.

Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant. The players are fooked. Accept the 37.5 or you will bleed.

 

[nyrmessier011]

please tell me what concessions the players have made now? 24% roll back? ahaha that is only a few players now ... nothing ... what other concessions .. a 52 million hard cap with upward linkage? ahaha The players have offered nothing (owners aren't doing much better I might add but they have increased the amount of income the players can have)

They settled from something they said that they never ever would. They agreed to a hard salary cap, the first of the kind in the NHL's 90 year history. Nothing? Are you on crack?

 

[Steve L*]

They settled from something they said that they never ever would. They agreed to a hard salary cap, the first of the kind in the NHL's 90 year history. Nothing? Are you on crack?

I could go into work and say I was willing to live under a £2m cap for my wages, it would have the same effect as the NHLPAs offer did.

 

[mooseOAK*]

That is not correct .. The NHL could declare IMPASSE and the rules state that the last bargained on CBA is inserted and regardless of if its the 42.5 or 37.5 hard cap figure both are a Hard Cap ..

The NHLPA now files a case to claim Unfair Bargaining and Bad Faith at which time the NLRB would rule ..

The NHL and MLB are Identical .. in the rules of impasse and Implementation .. and both sports attempted to implement a Hard Cap .. The key is whether the NLRB rules "BAD FAITH" negotiating and in order to do that it looks at the full process and if the teams have reached impasse and goes over all proposals with a fine tooth comb .. not just the 42.5 Hard cap figure but also Arbitration and Entry Contracts and the rules if the NHL proposal was in good faith ..

The NHL hasn't tried to implement anything before impasse and they are still negotiating, MLB actually did implement a cap before impasse. I guess that fact escaped you.

The NHL hasn't done anything that I have seen so far that constitutes bargaining in bad faith, just because they aren't doing what the NHLPA wants doesn't mean that they aren't trying for a fair deal.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

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.

Everybody keeps saying how nobody's going to go to replacement games ...

Fine, better by me. It's been awhile since I've been to a Canucks game since their prices have skyrocketed with the winning and it's always sold out within a month of the season starting.

It'll be nice to go to a Canucks game again and get some good seats.

Bring on the scabs !

 

[Icey]

Can the courts force the league to operate under conditions where they lose money while doing it?

Yes and that is why I say why would the league take that risk.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I could go into work and say I was willing to live under a £2m cap for my wages, it would have the same effect as the NHLPAs offer did.

If you are currently making more than 2 million than yea it would have the same effect. 49 million was high but it's not like there weren't any teams spending over that, about 1/3 of the league was spending over that weren't they? It wasn't 37 million but it was a huge step considering the players have had a completely free market on payrolls forever.

 

[Mess]

The NHL hasn't tried to implement anything before impasse and they are still negotiating, MLB actually did implement a cap before impasse. I guess that fact escaped you.

The NHL hasn't done anything that I have seen so far that constitutes bargaining in bad faith, just because they aren't doing what the NHLPA wants doesn't mean that they aren't trying for a fair deal.

Yes we all know this .. this event will happen in the future .. neither side can go to the courts at the moment .. Not sure what you are talking about !!!!!!!..

There is no need for the NHLPA to fight anything until that NHL has declared an impasse at which time it will insert its own CBA .. until that time we are in negotiations only .. this is pretty obvious ..

We are talking about the Next step of the NHL .. not the current one ..

IF the NHL wants to go with replacement players and wants NHLers to cross then IMPASSE and IMPLEMENTAION are the next steps if it feels it CAN NOT work out a deal with the PA ..

 

[CGG]

the NHLPA's first offer was made back in November. They touted it as a major step for the league, and guarenteed it would fix the league.... the offer was hollow. The rollback only would be applied once, causing the league to be back to the situation they were at in 1-2 years.

the NHL, before the season was cancelled, called the NHLPA's bluff. They proposed that they would Accept their offer, if the NHLPA woudl guarentee it woudl work. the NHL had 3 trigger points that would be triggered if the Deal did not work. And if they were triggered, the CBA would revert to thier offer.

The NHLPA, basically put in a position to guarentee thier own offer, declined. Essentially refusing to accept thier own terms and figures of their own deal, because even they couldnt guarentee it would work.

the trigger points became a point of interested on these forums. PA supporters say they were awful and not negotiable, League supporters then turned to multiple interviews given by the league which said that the triggers were negotiable, making it look even worse.

in the end, the NHLPA looked bad because they refused to accept thier own offer.

That's an awfully one-sided view of the events.

What I want to know is, how all these owner-lovin' "experts" on these boards are smart enough to see right through the hollow NHLPA proposal, as you called it, but actually honestly think that the trigger proposal was pure and innocent and wonderful?

Two triggers would have been immediate, a third would have kicked in soon thereafter. There was no possibly way to avoid it. Of course these are suddenly "negotiable" once the proposal was rejected. But, whoever you support, if you honestly think that this Bettman scam was a serious attempt at reaching a deal, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

If it didn't look, act, and behave EXACTLY like the owners' proposal, it would be immediately replaced by the owners' proposal. Gee, I can't figure out why it was rejected.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

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.

I think the owners position would be that after the loss of an entire season that substantially greater damage has been done to the game. This damage will reduce the revenue streams that they can afford to pay the players with. I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption.

I really think that the details (QO's, contract buy out %'s, arbitration, etc) are going to be the sticking points more than the cap limit.

 

[FrenchKheldar]

I don't understand how both sides can still argue on a de-linked cap. To me, there is so much uncertainty on what will happen if and when play resumes that it would be foolish for both sides to stick to a single number. 37M$ might still be way too high if nobody comes back to the arenas... on the other hand it might be too low in 2-3 years with Crosby scoring 120 pts a year in a big market and dragging US audience back in the mix with a good HDTV deal...

On the other hand, the problem with the linkage is that the NHLPA doesn't even want to see the NHL books whereas there is still a huge legal argument on what should count (once they start looking at it).

In 3 words, we are screwed...

 

[Russian Fan]

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.

Too funny : Spending 100$ for millionnaire players ? NOT OK, Spending 60$ for Billionnaire owners is FINE.

Real nice !!!

Go Spend your money

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Too funny : Spending 100$ for millionnaire players ? NOT OK, Spending 60$ for Billionnaire owners is FINE.

Real nice !!!

Go Spend your money

heheh....that was sweet!

 

[Lobstertainment]

That's an awfully one-sided view of the events.

What I want to know is, how all these owner-lovin' "experts" on these boards are smart enough to see right through the hollow NHLPA proposal, as you called it, but actually honestly think that the trigger proposal was pure and innocent and wonderful?

Two triggers would have been immediate, a third would have kicked in soon thereafter. There was no possibly way to avoid it. Of course these are suddenly "negotiable" once the proposal was rejected. But, whoever you support, if you honestly think that this Bettman scam was a serious attempt at reaching a deal, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

If it didn't look, act, and behave EXACTLY like the owners' proposal, it would be immediately replaced by the owners' proposal. Gee, I can't figure out why it was rejected.

Because those triggers were

1) Negotiable

and

2) kicked in for the 05/06 season not the 04/05 one so no triggers would have been immediatly activated.

It is what it is, the NHLPA refused to guarentee their own offer would work.

 

[Morbo]

The players didn't refuse their own offer. Just another myth perpetuated by the pitchfork-and-torch-wielding anti-player mob.

 

[txomisc]

That's an awfully one-sided view of the events.

It is also a pretty damn factual account.

What I want to know is, how all these owner-lovin' "experts" on these boards are smart enough to see right through the hollow NHLPA proposal, as you called it, but actually honestly think that the trigger proposal was pure and innocent and wonderful?

Two triggers would have been immediate, a third would have kicked in soon thereafter. There was no possibly way to avoid it. Of course these are suddenly "negotiable" once the proposal was rejected. But, whoever you support, if you honestly think that this Bettman scam was a serious attempt at reaching a deal, then you are completely out of touch with reality.

Fact: The trigger points were negotiable. NHL leaders said as much.That is an absolute fact. There is absolutely no evidence to make anyone believe that they were not. How negotiable they are is questionable, but there is absolutely no doubt that they were indeed negotiable. Anyone who says they weren't is likely either blatantly lying or completely fooling themselves.

If it didn't look, act, and behave EXACTLY like the owners' proposal, it would be immediately replaced by the owners' proposal. Gee, I can't figure out why it was rejected.

Deal with reality, please. Whatever side you are on, its a good idea to at least try to see the truth.

 

[CGG]

I don't understand how both sides can still argue on a de-linked cap. To me, there is so much uncertainty on what will happen if and when play resumes that it would be foolish for both sides to stick to a single number. 37M$ might still be way too high if nobody comes back to the arenas... on the other hand it might be too low in 2-3 years with Crosby scoring 120 pts a year in a big market and dragging US audience back in the mix with a good HDTV deal...

On the other hand, the problem with the linkage is that the NHLPA doesn't even want to see the NHL books whereas there is still a huge legal argument on what should count (once they start looking at it).

In 3 words, we are screwed...

They can stay de-linked by doing away with the minimum. If owners have actually grown a brain since this started, they won't have to spend $37M or whatever the cap number is. Most players are free agents. If the owners think they can only afford $20M since revenues will tank, then they will only pay $20M in salaries. Unless you believe that "salary caps act as magnest" crap.

But if the league does recover in a hurry and hits $3 Billion in revenues, that cap will still only be $37M. Huge profits for all.

 

[CGG]

Deal with reality, please. Whatever side you are on, its a good idea to at least try to see the truth.

I encourage you to take your own advice. The triggers were negotiable because the league said so, okay, I'm convinced! So what, maybe they bargain over triggers for 3 months and Gary is willing to remove one of them, so now we're only down to three triggers, some of which are triggered instantly.

It is what it is, the NHLPA refused to guarentee their own offer would work.

Wrong. The NHLPA refused to guarantee their own offer would work exactly like the league's offer, which it was never designed to do in the first place.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

But if the league does recover in a hurry and hits $3 Billion in revenues, that cap will still only be $37M. Huge profits for all.

How likely is that to happen? I think it's very aggressive to think that after losing an entire season that the league would get back to the $2.1B they did before the lockout.

Especially if you consider that last TV contract the NHL negotiated was such a dog.

I think the NHL would likely include some inflator in the CBA if 2003-04 was seen as the "index year". Bettman already stated that the league was going to continue to lose money for the early years of the CBA with the $42.5M cap. You can believe or disbelieve that as much as you want, but IMO the owners were willing to fund the damage done to the league when they offered their cap without linkage.

 

[CGG]

How likely is that to happen? I think it's very aggressive to think that after losing an entire season that the league would get back to the $2.1B they did before the lockout.

Especially if you consider that last TV contract the NHL negotiated was such a dog.

I think the NHL would likely include some inflator in the CBA if 2003-04 was seen as the "index year". Bettman already stated that the league was going to continue to lose money for the early years of the CBA with the $42.5M cap. You can believe or disbelieve that as much as you want, but IMO the owners were willing to fund the damage done to the league when they offered their cap without linkage.

$3 billion, obviously an exaggeration. But in the $42.5 million cap proposal, that number was stuck at $42.5 million for the length of the deal. It's not too unreasonable to think revenues would have recovered and eventually gone up to a level that would justify a higher cap in 4 or 6 years. Especially since the season wouldn't have been cancelled. Now that is much less likely to happen.

And with no floor, if revenues really did go down the toilet, owners could cut their payroll accordingly, so it wasn't much of a risk.

 

[txomisc]

I encourage you to take your own advice. The triggers were negotiable because the league said so, okay, I'm convinced! So what, maybe they bargain over triggers for 3 months and Gary is willing to remove one of them, so now we're only down to three triggers, some of which are triggered instantly.



Wrong. The NHLPA refused to guarantee their own offer would work exactly like the league's offer, which it was never designed to do in the first place.

Umm, yeah the NHL said they were negotiable so that means they were. That is how it works. Hell even if they weren't negotiable it would still be a good idea to at least attempt to negotiate them. Look you can try to justify the players refusal to negotiate the triggers all you want, but the facts, the absolute truth, is that they could have negotiated them if they had wanted to. Apparently, however, you are living in a odd world where facts are completely unimportant.

 

[txomisc]

$3 billion, obviously an exaggeration. But in the $42.5 million cap proposal, that number was stuck at $42.5 million for the length of the deal. It's not too unreasonable to think revenues would have recovered and eventually gone up to a level that would justify a higher cap in 4 or 6 years. Especially since the season wouldn't have been cancelled. Now that is much less likely to happen.

And with no floor, if revenues really did go down the toilet, owners could cut their payroll accordingly, so it wasn't much of a risk.

If they want the 42.5 to go up over the life of the deal, they have to agree to linkage. How hard is that to understand? You do not get all of the reward with none of the risk.

 

[PecaFan]

Wrong. The NHLPA refused to guarantee their own offer would work exactly like the league's offer, which it was never designed to do in the first place.

No, the NHLPA refused to guarantee their own offer would work exactly like the league's requirements.

And exactly what you said - which it was never designed to do in the first place. The PA tried to paint their offer as solving the NHL's problems. Everyone with half a brain (including the PA) could easily see that it would not.

The NHL offer was brilliant, in that it shone a bright light on the PA offer, and everyone could see it for the sham that it was.