NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
Steve L said:
Its quite simple, if the owners get what they want, the NHL prospers.
If the players get what they want, we will lose 4-8 NHL teams and the league goes pear shaped.

It shouldnt take a genius to work out who to pull for.

Can you tell me in what way it will prosper and how you came to this conclusion without trying to somehow compare it to the NFL salary cap.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
ScottyBowman said:
Can you tell me in what way it will prosper and how you came to this conclusion without trying to somehow compare it to the NFL salary cap.


Scotty,

If player cost were 5% of league revenues, would the league prosper?


A significant and permanent reduction in player cost ensures the NHL will have a better chance to prosper.
 

Frenzy31

Registered User
May 21, 2003
7,175
1,995
Guys,

The two offers are just a starting point. It isn't a be all end all offer. In negociations if you are trying to get to point 5 you will start at 3 and wait for a counter offer, then try and split the difference. This is not negociating in bad faith.

The owners stated that after killing the season, they were going to start back at square one. They have made two offers, to start the negociations and now the players need to decide what they would like to do and pick points they like or don't like - not tying cap to revenues - and make a counter.

This is standard negociations.
 

chiavsfan

Registered User
It's Negotiations first off

Secondly...this whole CBA mess was supposed to be a negotiation, and NOTHING has been negotiated...it's been a big chicken match, inctead of a game of cat and mouse like it's supposed to be

Sorry for the analogies...I've had too much coffee and not enough food
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Steve L said:
Its quite simple, if the owners get what they want, the NHL prospers.
If the players get what they want, we will lose 4-8 NHL teams and the league goes pear shaped.

It shouldnt take a genius to work out who to pull for.

What happen with your ''super NHL idea'' if the owners win & after 5 years they lose 4-8 teams ?

Because yes they fixed the level playing field with a cap or linkage but they didn't fix the revenue that is coming from the small market team ?

Will you still believe the owners ?

Both side offer wasn't good enough to REALLY FIX the game & you should realize it. When 1 side make an offer they present it as if it's good for the fans but they have their way by only telling the numbers & not the real mechanism.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
The most horribly incorrect thing I've read in this thread is the assertion that revenue sharing is bad, because teams would stop trying to earn more than the league average. That there is no benefit to increasing revenues. Wrong, wrong, and disgustingly wrong.

You don't think that NFL teams have incentive to increase their revenues?

Revenues will never be thrown in a pot and split 30 ways. Although this is what would work best in terms of ensuring a 30-team league remains healthy. So why would a team bother to work to increase its revenues? Simple. If they don't, they have 29 other owners that are missing out on their cut.

Can you imagine 29 owners yelling at Bill Writz to sign a damn TV deal for his home games? Right now, that lack of revenue is only hurting Chicago. But under full revenue sharing, it would be hurting 29 other teams as well.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
SSJTOM said:
Again the triggers were for the 05/06 season not the current one, no triggers would have been immediate.

as for pro-owner/pro-player I couldn't care less about either side, I'm pro-hockey.

Wrong. The triggers were negotiable, the PA could have come back with revamped triggers to guarentee their numbers.

They declined to do so because they knew full well that they could not guarentee to 100% certinty that their proposal would work, and I can't blame them for that no one knows how any implemented CBA is going to pan out over the years.

however the base deal was still their deal and they could have altered the triggers to be more favourable to them.

Like it or not they rejected their own proposal

I have never seen any actual written account that the triggers magically would be ignored until 2005-06. Even if that is the case, they would still be triggered automatically, so the owners proposal would be in place come 2005-06.

The flaw, if you could call it that, with the NHLPA proposal was that it was only a framework. A set of tools to decrease salaries and keep them there. It would have relied on a bunch of owners to not be idiots, and that, of course, is not acceptable to the owners, who more or less admit that they are in fact unable to control themselves. It was not an idiot-proof system. The NHL wants and says it needs a system that is completely idiot-proof.

The PA proposal was never set up to ensure that every team spent between $x and $y, or that payrolls were only w% of total revenues. So to slap on triggers to force it to actually be the owners proposal is ridiculous.

Any type of trigger would and could be achieved through actions by the owners and only the owners, the power to trigger the switch would have been solely in their hands, no matter what the triggers were. Negotiate all you want, the end result would still be the same, and that's the owners system being implemented.

Can we finally put to rest the notion that the players rejected their own proposal? Of all the lies and half-truths during this whole process, this is the King.

What happens now if the players come back and "accept" the $37.5M cap proposal, but put in a trigger that, if any team spends under $36.5M or the Stanley Cup is won by any team with an "S" in its name, or any team uses a goalie from Quebec, then the PA proposal is implemented? Who here would applaud the players for this? Who would scorn the owners for "rejecting their own proposal"? Who would want Gary to negotiate the triggers?
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
gc2005 said:
The most horribly incorrect thing I've read in this thread is the assertion that revenue sharing is bad, because teams would stop trying to earn more than the league average. That there is no benefit to increasing revenues. Wrong, wrong, and disgustingly wrong.

You don't think that NFL teams have incentive to increase their revenues?

Revenues will never be thrown in a pot and split 30 ways. Although this is what would work best in terms of ensuring a 30-team league remains healthy. So why would a team bother to work to increase its revenues? Simple. If they don't, they have 29 other owners that are missing out on their cut.

Can you imagine 29 owners yelling at Bill Writz to sign a damn TV deal for his home games? Right now, that lack of revenue is only hurting Chicago. But under full revenue sharing, it would be hurting 29 other teams as well.

I think the thing you are missing is that the NFL teams only share certain revenue streams (TV contract being the largest portion). As I understand it, the local revenue streams are still solely owned by the individual franchises. That means that each teams really gets 100% of the benefits of their local efforts to maximize their revenues.

The NHL is a gate driven league. If you went to a 100% revenue sharing system in that case, each team would only receive 3 1/3% (1/30th) of any increases that are generated by their marketing efforts. There would be very little incentive to try and improve the smaller markets. In affect, the small market teams (and their fans) would be subsidized by the larger market teams.

I don't think that limited revenue sharing would be "evil" as some here are making out. It's just another way of helping to spread some of the wealth. Much like the proposed luxury tax on salaries between $32-42.5M, this would help re-allocate $'s to the smaller market teams so they could afford to have a higher salary level. This theoritically allows them to compete better, which should improve their attendance.
 

fan mao rong

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
968
0
port royal , pa
Visit site
The Messenger said:
The NLRB ruled in the last Baseball strike and forced the parties back to the bargaining table and re-instated the previous CBA for Baseball .. No reason to believe that the same result is not possible again ..
They put the terms and conditions of the old Cba (Baseball) but they did not force them to play. I see this same deal on here again and again. If the NLRB issues an injunction it will be because they found probable cause that bad faith bargaining might have occured. The terms and conditions of the old CBA will apply until this matter is determined. The reason they do this, is that the passage of time until this ruling is made may so damage the complaining side (probably players) that the remedy if a ruling is made in their favor it would be meaningless. It doesn''t force them to open for business. MLB was never found to have bargained in bad faith. The matter was not ruled upon. The injunction was granted because the sides were not at impasse. The MLB originally wanted a salary cap, then they said they would not implement a salary cap and began negotiating a luxury tax with players, then a couple of days later they implemented a salary cap. It was found that the sides were not at impasse. The unfair practices complaint by the MLBPA could have been determined while the terms and conditions of the old Baseball CBA was in effect and the game was shut down. A settlement between MLB and MLBPA was reached before the ruling on bad faith bargaining was made. So, in review, Baseball was not forced to play under the old CBA, and in fact, they never played under the old CBA because MLB and MLBPA made a new arrangement before that happened.
 

free0717

Registered User
Apr 14, 2004
2,554
87
Old Bridge, NJ
I know large market teams would have to go into there pocket, but I dont see how a cap can work without major(30% Minumum) Revenue sharing
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Smail said:
The owners wouldn't be "forced". They could resume the lockout.

If the court orders a per se ruling, the owners could not resume the lockout
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
djhn579 said:
Please back up the quote below. You made the claim, you prove it...

How about Wayne Gretzky on FAN590 telling all listening that he had been in constant contact with Shane Doan over the CBA. Last I checked Shane is not a member of the negotiating committee.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
vanlady said:
If the court orders a per se ruling, the owners could not resume the lockout

Really? So you're telling me that an employer without an agreement wouldn't be able to declare a lockout? That would be a big first wouldn't it?

The court doesn't have the authority to "make a deal" which would tie the NHL and the NHLPA. The most they can do is reject an imposed CBA and state the old CBA must take place if the NHL operates before getting a new deal inked.

Some people just got to stop living in fantasy land... The court is there to enforce the law, not rule the world...
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Smail said:
Really? So you're telling me that an employer without an agreement wouldn't be able to declare a lockout? That would be a big first wouldn't it?

The court doesn't have the authority to "make a deal" which would tie the NHL and the NHLPA. The most they can do is reject an imposed CBA and state the old CBA must take place if the NHL operates before getting a new deal inked.

Some people just got to stop living in fantasy land... The court is there to enforce the law, not rule the world...

First a CBA is never dead until a new one is negotiated. Labor law 101.

Second this happens all the time in bad faith decisions. If the NLRB and the courts rule bad faith the NHL could be forced through a per se ruling to start up under the old CBA and if the ALJ is really cranky he could force the NHL to pay all the players the salary owned from last season as well. Depends on how much union animus is proven.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
gc2005 said:
The most horribly incorrect thing I've read in this thread is the assertion that revenue sharing is bad, because teams would stop trying to earn more than the league average. That there is no benefit to increasing revenues. Wrong, wrong, and disgustingly wrong.

You don't think that NFL teams have incentive to increase their revenues?

Revenues will never be thrown in a pot and split 30 ways. Although this is what would work best in terms of ensuring a 30-team league remains healthy. So why would a team bother to work to increase its revenues? Simple. If they don't, they have 29 other owners that are missing out on their cut.

Can you imagine 29 owners yelling at Bill Writz to sign a damn TV deal for his home games? Right now, that lack of revenue is only hurting Chicago. But under full revenue sharing, it would be hurting 29 other teams as well.

In the NFL, several owners are mad at others who are sitting on revenue sharing and that are not trying to increase their revenues.

When you're sharing revenues, your incentive to increase revenues is lower. In a league where players earn 55% of revenues and where there would be 20% of revenues shared, adding a $10M TV deal doesn't bring in that much in revenues. If your cost for the $10M TV deal is $3M, then in a revenue sharing environment you're losing money if you accept this deal. You will spend $5.5M in salaries and $2M in revenue sharing, putting you at a loss of $0.5M. Why would you do that deal? On the other hand, in a non revenue sharing environment, you would earn $1.5M, so you'd do that deal in a heartbeat.

In other words, if you're sharing 20% of your revenues, if the player salaries are 55% and you set your cost of capital to 5%, then you will reject any project that adds revenues whenever the annual cost of that revenue is above 20% of the annual revenue stream. This figure jumps to 40% without revenue sharing. If I'm a player and I want to maximize my salary, then I'm against revenue sharing since there will be more projects and opportunities to increase and max out revenues without revenue sharing.

Now, the exception to the rule is when you share global revenues (like NFL's national TV revenues), because it's a league investment.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
vanlady said:
First a CBA is never dead until a new one is negotiated. Labor law 101.

Second this happens all the time in bad faith decisions. If the NLRB and the courts rule bad faith the NHL could be forced through a per se ruling to start up under the old CBA and if the ALJ is really cranky he could force the NHL to pay all the players the salary owned from last season as well. Depends on how much union animus is proven.

When a CBA is expired, the employees or the owners are free to declare a strike or a lockout. There ain't any laws that restricts this.

Bad faith decisions reinstutes the CBA, but doesn't prevent the owners from restoring a lockout.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Smail said:
When a CBA is expired, the employees or the owners are free to declare a strike or a lockout. There ain't any laws that restricts this.

Bad faith decisions reinstutes the CBA, but doesn't prevent the owners from restoring a lockout.

A CBA can expire however, the mandatory subjects of bargaining remain in place until a new CBA is negotiated

Any per se ruling in a labor dispute would end any lockout pretty much permantly. No employer can reinstitue a lockout that has already been ruled bad faith. That my dear is contempt of court.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
vanlady said:
How about Wayne Gretzky on FAN590 telling all listening that he had been in constant contact with Shane Doan over the CBA. Last I checked Shane is not a member of the negotiating committee.

Doan is the nhlpa team rep for for Gretzky's team though. that is why he would be in contact with him.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
vanlady said:
How about Wayne Gretzky on FAN590 telling all listening that he had been in constant contact with Shane Doan over the CBA. Last I checked Shane is not a member of the negotiating committee.


Reading comprehesion is a wonderful thing....

If you read and understood the conversation Hawker14 and I were having, you would understand that we were not debating whether owners or management were talking to players. We were discussing whether that was grounds for a bad faith negotiating charge against the NHL. Please refer to the text below that was copied from post 185 on page 13 of this thread...

Please back up the quote below. You made the claim, you prove it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker14
if there is any factual evidence of the nhl speaking/negotiating with any members of the nhlpa other than the nhlpa negotiating committee, then that is bad faith negotiating. the nhlpa is a legally certified union, and the nhl negotiating with anyone other than their negotiating committee is bad faith.


I was asking Hawker14 to provide any proof he may have that conversations between management and union employees was grounds for bad faith negotiating. He, apparently, can't provide any evidence that this is the case.

Can you?
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
vanlady said:
A CBA can expire however, the mandatory subjects of bargaining remain in place until a new CBA is negotiated

Any per se ruling in a labor dispute would end any lockout pretty much permantly. No employer can reinstitue a lockout that has already been ruled bad faith. That my dear is contempt of court.

A lockout can't be ruled bad faith. An impasse can.

As to the mandatory subjects of bargainin remaining in place, I never said otherwise. However, that still doesn't take away the right of the employer to lockout the employees.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->