NHL Proposal was very generous and fair

[Crazy Lunatic]

Uhm.. you're forgetting something else that's relatively significant... 24 % rollback on top of that... along with the fact that they just tacted on the luxury tax inside the cap they previously suggested. 300,000$ minimum? That helps noone. No one is making that little. If you look at the proposal, the owners made no concessions. That's part of bargaining you know. You have to realize the 6 offers they made at the beginning, they were all better than this one! This not bargaining in good faith.

A 31 million dollar cap with no minimum is worse than a 42 million dollar cap with a 32 million dollar minimum? Happy opposite day!

 

[Morbo]

I find it sad how many people believe the owners are offering a great deal.

The fact is, they have offered nothing tangible whatsoever to make the players think about accepting a cap.

 

[krandor]

I find it sad how many people believe the owners are offering a great deal.

The fact is, they have offered nothing tangible whatsoever to make the players think about accepting a cap.

What they offered is not meant to be the best they are willing to accept, but is simply a starting point for negotiations. If you put the best you are willing to accept in your proposal you would have no room to negotiate.

If the PA would accept cap/linkage, they can write just about the rest of the CBA themselves. Just say "we'll accept a cap/linkage but you have to give us X,Y,Z,A" and the NHL will have to give it to them.

 

[X0ssbar]

What they offered is not meant to be the best they are willing to accept, but is simply a starting point for negotiations. If you put the best you are willing to accept in your proposal you would have no room to negotiate.

If the PA would accept cap/linkage, they can write just about the rest of the CBA themselves. Just say "we'll accept a cap/linkage but you have to give us X,Y,Z,A" and the NHL will have to give it to them.

Exactly - the NHL isn't going to negotiate against themselves.

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over UFA, Arbitration, etc.

This negotiation starts and ends with the players accepting linkage. Once/if that happens, everything else is negotiable and I personally think the NHL would swing alot of those other negotiation points in the player's favor.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

What they offered is not meant to be the best they are willing to accept, but is simply a starting point for negotiations. If you put the best you are willing to accept in your proposal you would have no room to negotiate.

When are they going to make their best offer ??? July ... November ???

 

[chara]

This is not about fair.

Goodenow is not even considering anything the NHL is proposing. That's how he negotiates....just keep putting out the same deal and wait for the other guy to cave. He trained most of the player agents the same strategy and they've all had huge success over the last 10 years.

Bettman knows this and that's why he has the "8 rule" in effect. Goodenow is used to getting his way and he may very well get it again.

This thing is all about egos, cost linkage/certainty is an after thought. Goodenow has full support of the NHLPA and the agents as he's made them very rich over the last decade.

 

[krandor]

When are they going to make their best offer ??? July ... November ???

The same time the players put forth their best offer - in the negotiating room.

 

[Morbo]

This is not about fair.

Goodenow is not even considering anything the NHL is proposing. That's how he negotiates....just keep putting out the same deal and wait for the other guy to cave.

And this is different from what Bettman is doing...how?

 

[robcav]

The same time the players put forth their best offer - in the negotiating room.

The players have no reason to table another offer, as they would in effect be bargaining against themselves. When the owners come to their senses and try to actually negotiate a deal then perhaps we will see a better offer from the players. As it stands right now it makes no sense for the players to make any offer, knowing that the NHL will adopt with ever "salary drag" proposals the players put forth and add them to their cap, as they added the 24 percent roll back and the luxury tax within the cap. This lockout may go on a long time.

 

[eye]

The players have no reason to table another offer, as they would in effect be bargaining against themselves. When the owners come to their senses and try to actually negotiate a deal then perhaps we will see a better offer from the players. As it stands right now it makes no sense for the players to make any offer, knowing that the NHL will adopt with ever "salary drag" proposals the players put forth and add them to their cap, as they added the 24 percent roll back and the luxury tax within the cap. This lockout may go on a long time.

No it won't. Only until September 2005 when NHL II starts play. The thread starter is right on. The NHL have made some very significant concessions that players seem to be taking for granted.

 

[krandor]

and that is the same reason you won't see many public proposals from the owners with any new concessions in it because if they made any concessions they would immediately be picked up and added to any PA proposal.

However, none of this is about salary rollbacks, arbitration, etc. It is all about the cap and linkage. Until they is resolved, no other terms in these proposals matter. Once that is decided, the side that moves will have the leverage to demand most anything else they want.

So until one side wants to change their cap/linkage position, any other proposals are useless from either side. They need to get back in the room, talk, and figure something on out cap/linkage.

 

[mudcrutch79]

No it won't. Only until September 2005 when NHL II starts play.

Why even make this post? It's been explained over and over and over that NHL II is effectively impossible. It's not an option.

What's the point in continuing with this vein of thought?

 

[wazee]

When are they going to make their best offer ??? July ... November ???

When are the players going to make theirs? It would be interesting to see the NHLPA offer a hard cap of 45M without linkage or the 24% rollback. I think the NHL would be very interested. IMO, the owners talk about linkage is designed to convince the players that getting a hard cap is a 'win' for the NHLPA considering the alternative is 'linkage'.

Until the NHLPA accepts the concept of a cap, there is no point in the NHL making an offer.

 

[Ron C.]

If 2005-06 doesn't start on time, the next generation of players will likely be quite happy to play a game for an average salary of 1.3M (or less) with or without linkage.

 

[Icey]

I agree on the whole. The PA needs to give into a linkage of salaries. How that linkage is enforced is up for debate, but they need to realize the concept is a good one. The feeling I have is that whichever side gives in to the others' philosophy first is going to have allll the leverage on the rest of the CBA. If I were the PA, I would say 'fine I will live with linkage, but I want this this this this and this', and the NHL won't have much choice but to give in on those other issues.

The worst thing the players could do is give in to the linkeage concept. They need a cap, but without the linkeage. They link salaries to revenue and the revenue falls (which it will) and all the sudden teams are looking a $15M payrolls and the owners don't care because they are still getting the same percentage of the revenues. There is nothing to encourage an owner or the NHL to GROW the sport in this proposal. How about put some pressure on the owners and the NHL to grow the sport instead of just sitting back and letting the sport go on auto pilot.

Take the linkage out and just put a cap of $40M and I bet the players would consider it.

 

[eye]

Why even make this post? It's been explained over and over and over that NHL II is effectively impossible. It's not an option.

What's the point in continuing with this vein of thought?

It's not only possible but likely the exit plan for the owners. It's already been explained that it's not as bizarre of an idea as many of you seem to think.

Timeline:

Late August 2005 Impasse Declared

Early September Players call a strike

Early October = NHL II starting under the terms of latest NHL offer which includes linkage. Linkage at 54% of less than a Billion in League revenues to bring pay scales in line with a combination of replacement players and players that cross the picket line (and there will be many)

Mid-October = NHLPA spend millions and several months or years trying to appeal Imasse decision through the NLRB which is composed of Republican based members that generally support owners vs. employees. NHLPA don't have any legal recourse in BC, Alberta, Ontario or Quebec as the NHLPA is not a certified union in any of these provinces.

Within months the owners will get their way, one way or the other. I suspect they would prefer to get a deal done now but their exit plan is quite clear.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The same time the players put forth their best offer - in the negotiating room.

the players are not the ones trying to dramatically alter a 75 year old business model. Its the owners responsibility to put the sugar on the table, not the other way around.

DR

 

[krandor]

the players are not the ones trying to dramatically alter a 75 year old business model. Its the owners responsibility to put the sugar on the table, not the other way around.

DR

So the players shouldn't try to put forth their best offer either?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So the players shouldn't try to put forth their best offer either?

the players did put their best offer on the table. the owners want a completly different system, so its up to them to sell it to the players.

if you had widget in your house that i wanted to buy, but you didnt want to sell. should i expect you to make me a good offer to buy it from you ?

you dont want to sell it ! so of course you arent going to give me a good offer to sell it to me.

on the other hand, if i really want it, wouldnt it be up to me to make an offer you would consider and to keep making those offers better until you change your mind or i give up ?

just the same. the players arent interested in linkage, so why would they make a good offer to the owners on that basis ?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

just the same. the players arent interested in linkage, so why would they make a good offer to the owners on that basis ?

Maybe because the players are interested in getting paid again?

 

[Other Dave]

It's not only possible but likely the exit plan for the owners. It's already been explained that it's not as bizarre of an idea as many of you seem to think.

The timeline you just described sounds like a pretty bizarre idea to me...

 

[krandor]

just the same. the players arent interested in linkage, so why would they make a good offer to the owners on that basis ?

To get all the other things like want. If they add a cap without linkage and then set arbitration, UFA, etc. in the ways they want then there would be an agreement that could be negotiated from.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Maybe because the players are interested in getting paid again?

seems they arent ... now what ?

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

seems they arent ... now what ?

dr

Wait until they are.

 

[Seachd]

They link salaries to revenue and the revenue falls (which it will) and all the sudden teams are looking a $15M payrolls and the owners don't care because they are still getting the same percentage of the revenues. There is nothing to encourage an owner or the NHL to GROW the sport in this proposal.

Of course there is. 54% is a different amount of money depending on revenue. The more revenue, the same 54%, but the more money. The healthier the league, the more money both the players and owners make.