NHL Proposal was very generous and fair

Status
Not open for further replies.

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,910
21,233
New York
www.youtube.com
It's called linkage

The NHL, in its latest proposal, set a maximum team payroll of $42 million with a payroll floor of $32 million. The linkage issue is the league's insistence that player costs won't exceed 53% to 55% of revenue in any given year. Even if some players were willing to accept a team payroll cap — and it's impossible to know how many would be, because only a few have spoken out on the issue — the linkage issue is at the forefront because they fear the league's revenue has shrunk significantly thanks to the lockout. Players don't like the idea that their salaries could spin downward if owners can't maintain revenues after the lockout ends.

The linkage issue isn't new to this process, but the fact that it is getting more discussion behind the scenes would seem to suggest that at least one side views it as a possible key to a compromise.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2005-02-06-lockout-talks_x.htm

Either guarantee the cap figure or increase the % of revenue.That is the compromise the NHL must make if the players are to accept the cap
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
DR said:
seems they arent ... now what ?

dr

Let them sit until all contracts expire and start all over. No contractual obligation means no one can whine or complain when you open up camps to all comers, right? It's only a matter of time before some of these guys realize that they don't have the skills to do anything else that will garner remotely close to what they have an opportunity to make. The owners just have to wait them out.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
RangerBoy said:
It's called linkage

The NHL, in its latest proposal, set a maximum team payroll of $42 million with a payroll floor of $32 million. The linkage issue is the league's insistence that player costs won't exceed 53% to 55% of revenue in any given year. Even if some players were willing to accept a team payroll cap — and it's impossible to know how many would be, because only a few have spoken out on the issue — the linkage issue is at the forefront because they fear the league's revenue has shrunk significantly thanks to the lockout. Players don't like the idea that their salaries could spin downward if owners can't maintain revenues after the lockout ends.

The linkage issue isn't new to this process, but the fact that it is getting more discussion behind the scenes would seem to suggest that at least one side views it as a possible key to a compromise.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/2005-02-06-lockout-talks_x.htm

Either guarantee the cap figure or increase the % of revenue.That is the compromise the NHL must make if the players are to accept the cap

From the owners' perspective there is a rationale to link whether you agree with it or disagree with it. That rationale is that the players' stubborness has damaged the ability of the league to generate the revenues it could have if things had not gone this far.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
The Iconoclast said:
.. The owners just have to wait them out.
yes, this seems to be the plan. i fail to see how this serves you (the fan) better than the NHL actually being on the ice.

dr
 
eye said:
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.

It was exactly this kind of dispute which led to the birht of the NHL in this first place. In that case it was a rogue owner in Toronto (Eddie Livingstone) who was
playing all sorts of economical games to give his team(s) (he actually owned 2 at one point) a greyish edge over the competition.

Rather than try to expel Livingstone, or revoke his franchise the NHA (National Hockey Association) owners simply withdrew and formed the NHL.

This is entirely possible. It's something that I think becomes a greater probability the longer this drags out.

However at this point it's still too early to tell. We're even starting to hear players like Chris Chelios suggest that the playoffs could be extended through July to get a season in. My feeling is that this will be dragged out a LONG, LONG time before even THIS season is cancelled, let alone dismantling the league...
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Icey said:
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.

I agree, I should have clarified a little more. The PA should give into linkage OR a hard cap, it would seem that a hard cap is the better option for them for the reasons you stated. It also seems like most players would play with a cap if it was high enough. Then, once the PA were to give in to this, they could get a lot out of the NHL.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
DR said:
yes, this seems to be the plan. i fail to see how this serves you (the fan) better than the NHL actually being on the ice.

dr

Serves me, the fan, by setting a market where I know the teams that I have cheered for in the past have an actual chance of being competitive each year and not continually beign forced to give away the quality talent they develop for more prospects in a continual vicious cycle. I'd rather have two years of no hockey than be subjected to a league where the rich teams continue to have a huge advantage.
 

Mighty Duck

Registered User
Jul 6, 2003
334
0
Visit site
Forget the dollar value of wages involved here and apply this to your own life. Is this somthing you would accept. Item 7 in the proposal is illegal in Canada and the USA with out a CBA. It seems it suites your fancy to have something illegal, as long as it get your fix of hockey back. The NHL needs the NHLPA, as without the NHLPA, there is no CBA, and no CBA, no CBA, no draft, most or all players without contracts would become UFA, and able to sign for any team they wish, including the rookies.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
The Iconoclast said:
Serves me, the fan, by setting a market where I know the teams that I have cheered for in the past have an actual chance of being competitive each year and not continually beign forced to give away the quality talent they develop for more prospects in a continual vicious cycle. I'd rather have two years of no hockey than be subjected to a league where the rich teams continue to have a huge advantage.
so what talent has CGY been forced to give away because of this cba ?

seems to me, CGY has benefited from the last CBA just fine. In a capped NHL, CGY would not have been able to deal Fleury for Regehr or Nieuwendyk for Iginla, the other teams would have not been able to pick up those contracts.

DR
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
DR said:
so what talent has CGY been forced to give away because of this cba ?

seems to me, CGY has benefited from the last CBA just fine. In a capped NHL, CGY would not have been able to deal Fleury for Regehr or Nieuwendyk for Iginla, the other teams would have not been able to pick up those contracts.

DR

they've also been unable to be competitive for top-flight UFA's and been forced to make deals like that due to their inability to sign and keep their own talent. sure they've made good trades, but building a team by trading away good players for prospects is not a recipe for long-term success.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
DR said:
so what talent has CGY been forced to give away because of this cba ?

seems to me, CGY has benefited from the last CBA just fine. In a capped NHL, CGY would not have been able to deal Fleury for Regehr or Nieuwendyk for Iginla, the other teams would have not been able to pick up those contracts.

DR

That's right. Calgary would have been able to keep those players and remained competitive, instead of missing the playoffs for the better part of a decade. If they would have been forced to deal those players away it would have been for NHL ready talent in the same ball park. Either way the Flames would have been able to remain competitive, something they were not because of the CBA.
 

David

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,007
0
Visit site
DR said:
so what talent has CGY been forced to give away because of this cba ?

seems to me, CGY has benefited from the last CBA just fine. In a capped NHL, CGY would not have been able to deal Fleury for Regehr or Nieuwendyk for Iginla, the other teams would have not been able to pick up those contracts.

DR

In a capped NHL, CGY would not have HAD to deal away Fleury...Bryan McCabe, anyone?
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
David said:
In a capped NHL, CGY would not have HAD to deal away Fleury...Bryan McCabe, anyone?

But in a capped CBA how do the flames pay Iginal $7.5M (remember he made $625,000 when he came from those high paying Dallas Stars), Kipursoff $3M (he made $880,000 when he came from San Jose), and Lydman $2.5M, just to name a few without having to trade one of them away?

They have three players signed and have spent $13M. With a cap of say $35M how do you sign 20 other players for $21M. It ought to be interesting.

If you ask me, Calgary has contributed to this mess as much as the Detroit's, Colorado, Dallas, NY Ranger, Toronto's have. I don't believe that there is any team out there that has not contributed to the mess the NHL is in right now.
 

Crazy Lunatic

Guest
Mighty Duck said:
Forget the dollar value of wages involved here and apply this to your own life. Is this somthing you would accept. Item 7 in the proposal is illegal in Canada and the USA with out a CBA. It seems it suites your fancy to have something illegal, as long as it get your fix of hockey back. The NHL needs the NHLPA, as without the NHLPA, there is no CBA, and no CBA, no CBA, no draft, most or all players without contracts would become UFA, and able to sign for any team they wish, including the rookies.

If impass is declared, the owners last offer becomes the CBA. Problem solved.
 

NewBreed19

Guest
Crazy Lunatic said:
If impass is declared, the owners last offer becomes the CBA. Problem solved.
There will be alot of legal implications but the last offer will most likley become the new cba. This season is done!! I don't see a deal getting done. :madfire:
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
NewBreed19 said:
There will be alot of legal implications but the last offer will most likley become the new cba. This season is done!! I don't see a deal getting done. :madfire:

The way I see it, the owners can go with the impasse right now. If the rhetoric in the meetings is the same as in the press releases, I don't see how you could claim an impasse does not exist. Then each side does the unfair labor practice bit. That is a bit chancy, but I don't see what the NHL violated in the NRLA, but of course, I'm not a lawyer...

Now what if the impasse is upheld? The owners could use replacement players if the players decide to strike, but they don't have to. The important thing is that the players have yo vote, Goodenow and Linden can't prevent the players from having their say. I personally think most would want to play, but even if they don't, the players are now on strike and the owners just wait for the players to come around. They can keep meeting with the players to discuss the cba, but then they just do Goodenow's bit and say no to whatever the NHLPA wants.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Icey said:
But in a capped CBA how do the flames pay Iginal $7.5M (remember he made $625,000 when he came from those high paying Dallas Stars), Kipursoff $3M (he made $880,000 when he came from San Jose), and Lydman $2.5M, just to name a few without having to trade one of them away?

They have three players signed and have spent $13M. With a cap of say $35M how do you sign 20 other players for $21M. It ought to be interesting.

The current cap proposal is $42 million, not $35 million, so your question is a little misleading.
Regardless, given that the Flames' median salary last year was around $950,000, it shouldn't be difficult at all to sign the other 20 players for $29 million. Heck, they could do it for under $20 million without a single significant cut.
 

Gary

Registered User
This thing is all about egos, cost linkage/certainty is an after thought

I disagree...Riddle me this those who claim the NHL is hellbent on screwing the players, ego tripping, whatever...The owners are BILLIONAIRES...If the NHL as it stands under the current CBA or any proposed by Goodenow would make them all $$$ then THERE WOULD BE HOCKEY RIGHT NOW. I'm not harping on you Chara, just find it hard to side with the players...Right after the last CBA talks, the NHLPA lawyers went to work for days trying to find holes in the system to drain as much $$$ as possible. REPEATEDLY FOR YEARS the NHL told the NHLPA that if things kept up the way they had the league would be in financial chaos-Goodenow and company ignored the league and just set out to get as much as possible...IF the players/players agents/NHLPA did'nt stay awake at night looking for and finding ways to screw the owners we'd never be in the mess. Make no mistake about it...The players WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to serve their own greed and never gave a damn about the state of the game or the business one way or another for TEN YEARS...Agents pushing players, NHLPA pushing agents, secret talks about player worths, lawyers working in the 'bonus clause' tactic to VOID the rookie salary to keep salaries from esculating at too fast a rate...The NHLPA can fold tomorrow and I would'nt give a rats ass...personally, I've lost a TONNE of respect for them after this whole fiasco. Not only have they been utterly CLASSLESS and CLUELESS, the think that angers me the most is Linden/Bob getting all childish and pissy after they figured the NHL tried to 'lowball' them...Well, that's what it's like you frickin' morons! That's what you've been doing for YEARS even after being told time after time after time by owners what your greed and arogance would lead too! Looks GREAT on the players IMO...GO OWNERS GO!!
 

Jester

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
34,076
11
St. Andrews
Icey said:
But in a capped CBA how do the flames pay Iginal $7.5M (remember he made $625,000 when he came from those high paying Dallas Stars), Kipursoff $3M (he made $880,000 when he came from San Jose), and Lydman $2.5M, just to name a few without having to trade one of them away?

They have three players signed and have spent $13M. With a cap of say $35M how do you sign 20 other players for $21M. It ought to be interesting.

If you ask me, Calgary has contributed to this mess as much as the Detroit's, Colorado, Dallas, NY Ranger, Toronto's have. I don't believe that there is any team out there that has not contributed to the mess the NHL is in right now.

Calgary has done very little to create the market where players are getting paid that much money. market value for those players was set and if you want keep players and avoid hold-outs you have to meet market price... one of the main reasons the owners are against arbitration.

Sakic, Kariya, and Lindros... those are the contracts that started the idiocy big-time. then you had other contracts like Lapointe's in boston that brought up certain contracts. name one contract that Calgary signed that became a bar for other contracts and you would have a case...
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Gary said:
This thing is all about egos, cost linkage/certainty is an after thought

I disagree...Riddle me this those who claim the NHL is hellbent on screwing the players, ego tripping, whatever...The owners are BILLIONAIRES...If the NHL as it stands under the current CBA or any proposed by Goodenow would make them all $$$ then THERE WOULD BE HOCKEY RIGHT NOW. I'm not harping on you Chara, just find it hard to side with the players...Right after the last CBA talks, the NHLPA lawyers went to work for days trying to find holes in the system to drain as much $$$ as possible. REPEATEDLY FOR YEARS the NHL told the NHLPA that if things kept up the way they had the league would be in financial chaos-Goodenow and company ignored the league and just set out to get as much as possible...IF the players/players agents/NHLPA did'nt stay awake at night looking for and finding ways to screw the owners we'd never be in the mess. Make no mistake about it...The players WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to serve their own greed and never gave a damn about the state of the game or the business one way or another for TEN YEARS...Agents pushing players, NHLPA pushing agents, secret talks about player worths, lawyers working in the 'bonus clause' tactic to VOID the rookie salary to keep salaries from esculating at too fast a rate...The NHLPA can fold tomorrow and I would'nt give a rats ass...personally, I've lost a TONNE of respect for them after this whole fiasco. Not only have they been utterly CLASSLESS and CLUELESS, the think that angers me the most is Linden/Bob getting all childish and pissy after they figured the NHL tried to 'lowball' them...Well, that's what it's like you frickin' morons! That's what you've been doing for YEARS even after being told time after time after time by owners what your greed and arogance would lead too! Looks GREAT on the players IMO...GO OWNERS GO!!

punctuation and white space is your friend.

I am sure what you wrote is intelligent and fine, but I got a headache trying to read it since it seems to be one lone run on sentence.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
nyr7andcounting said:
I agree, I should have clarified a little more. The PA should give into linkage OR a hard cap, it would seem that a hard cap is the better option for them for the reasons you stated. It also seems like most players would play with a cap if it was high enough. Then, once the PA were to give in to this, they could get a lot out of the NHL.

I disagree. Abandoning linkage could be the worst thing for the PA to do if they agree to a cap. I understand the worry that reenues will fall for a couple of years (they very likely will), but over the long-term there's a 99 percent chance they grow. By avoiding linkage, they players will be missing out on the benefits of that growth.
the players would be better off, IMO, by agreeing to linkage, but negotiating a worst-case figure so that regardless of how far revenues drop the next couple years the cap would not fall below that number.
 

Gary

Registered User
punctuation and white space is your friend.

I am sure what you wrote is intelligent and fine, but I got a headache trying to read it since it seems to be one lone run on sentence.

I don't write books so I don't give a damn if my writing looks pretty. If you understand English then you'll know what I'm saying OUI? :D
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
CarlRacki said:
I disagree. Abandoning linkage could be the worst thing for the PA to do if they agree to a cap. I understand the worry that reenues will fall for a couple of years (they very likely will), but over the long-term there's a 99 percent chance they grow. By avoiding linkage, they players will be missing out on the benefits of that growth.
the players would be better off, IMO, by agreeing to linkage, but negotiating a worst-case figure so that regardless of how far revenues drop the next couple years the cap would not fall below that number.

I'm sure that the NHLPA could also negotiate something along the lines of: "The salary cap can't decrease more that 10% a year..." Both sides know that revenues will decrease next season if they don't play this season. But with a clause like this the players can limit the loses until things turn back around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->