NHLPA Insane not to accept Offer!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

X0ssbar

Guest
What happened to the 24% rollbacks? :dunno:

They don't appear to be part of the league's "final" offer? That is a major concession in itself.

As long as the union gets over the cap word everything is negotiable in this deal within reason. Cap range can be moved up, UFA down, profit sharing adjusted, etc. The league definitely left some wiggle room here.

The key is for the Association to accept this framework which I think is very reasonable.
 

monster_bertuzzi

registered user
May 26, 2003
32,733
3
Vancouver
Visit site
Top Shelf said:
What happened to the 24% rollbacks? :dunno:

They don't appear to be part of the league's "final" offer? That is a major concession in itself.

As long as the union gets over the cap word everything is negotiable in this deal within reason. Cap range can be moved up, UFA down, profit sharing adjusted, etc. The league definitely left some wiggle room here.

The key is for the Union to accept this framework which I think is very reasonable.

The 24% rollback was nothing more than a PR move by the union to get some sympathy. That proposal was worthless - luxury tax of 20 cents to the dollar for payrolls over 45 million? They knew they would lose 24% of their salary (only half of the players are under contracy anyways!) but would see contracts skyrocket yet again within 2 years.
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
monster_bertuzzi said:
As long as the word ''salary cap'' is in there - and this proposal has a 42 million hard cap, I dont see Linden accepting it.

Actually, the article says that since the players have to pay their own benefits it works out to 40 million and not 42 million per team. My favorite part of this offer is if the owners spend too much, then the NHLPA gets to pay them back. How nice. Oh and they've dropped the free agency a whole year!!!!! :shakehead

The revenue sharing seems nice, but billionaires have excellent accountants and I don't trust them not to hide funds from an independent auditor.

I can see the NHLPA entering the insane asylum right now.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
no13matssundin said:
Eklund, is that you? :D

You don't have to claim to have sources just to know how negotiations and public relations work, I see the players accepting whatever the owners last offer will be simply because it's logical, fact is, clues to what has been transpiring with CBA talks are all over the place, in the media, internet, you don't have to be sitting at the table to kind of figure out what's going on...

I wished that when this whole thing is settled, someone could make a timeline of actual events that happened during these negotiations, that way we could actually see what happened, I have a feeling some people would get a quick education in negotiations...
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
If the PA didn't think December's offer was a basis for negotiation, they aren't any more "crazy" now for turning this latest one down.
 

Mikko_Makela

Registered User
Jan 20, 2005
8
0
shakes said:
Actually, the article says that since the players have to pay their own benefits it works out to 40 million and not 42 million per team. My favorite part of this offer is if the owners spend too much, then the NHLPA gets to pay them back. How nice. Oh and they've dropped the free agency a whole year!!!!! :shakehead

The revenue sharing seems nice, but billionaires have excellent accountants and I don't trust them not to hide funds from an independent auditor.

I can see the NHLPA entering the insane asylum right now.

Well enter it they may......if they do not accept it....the offer can only go down. The NHL will not have the funds to support these contract a year from today.

If the hold up is worrying about mutually agreed upon auditors not being able to find funds......then further stiffen the penalties.....make it to where the risk way outweighs the reward!!!
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Anyone ever think as to why the NHLPA hasn't just stopped negotiating all together, they keep saying that there's philisophical differences, and they keep putting negative spins on everything, so why haven't you just stopped calling the owners, why are you still negotiating to play for this season, when you won't be able to play more than 36 games or so and you won't even be paid in the playoffs?

just something for some to think about... ;)
 

X0ssbar

Guest
monster_bertuzzi said:
The 24% rollback was nothing more than a PR move by the union to get some sympathy. That proposal was worthless - luxury tax of 20 cents to the dollar for payrolls over 45 million? They knew they would lose 24% of their salary (only half of the players are under contracy anyways!) but would see contracts skyrocket yet again within 2 years.

I agree - it definitely was a PR stunt with holes larger than the titanic but the fact that rollbacks have completely been taken out of the picture (at least according to this article) is still a concession from the league.

Without rollbacks it will be interesting to see how a contract such as a Yashin or Holik is handeled if/when a cost certainty system is implemented.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
Anyone ever think as to why the NHLPA hasn't just stopped negotiating all together, they keep saying that there's philisophical differences, and they keep putting negative spins on everything, so why haven't you just stopped calling the owners, why are you still negotiating to play for this season, when you won't be able to play more than 36 games or so and you won't even be paid in the playoffs?

because they do want to play hockey? unlike the owners who don't give a damn about hockey?
 

Beatnik

Registered User
Sep 2, 2002
5,699
0
Québec
Visit site
I think they can still get much more. the NHL offer is still far of the NFL deal witch is the ultimate worst the players can accept IMO.

I think the final deal will be more between the NFL and NBA deal.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
it's not bad for the playyers that they could completely do away with it after 4 years if they don't like it
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Levitate said:
because they do want to play hockey? unlike the owners who don't give a damn about hockey?

Well, you got part of the answer right...the players want to play hockey, you got that right, and despite what they say, they realize that the owners last offer will be their best offer, and Bettman knows that they know this, which is why he's refused to give a drop dead date, like the PA is after...PA is just feeling out the owners right now, PA knows that when they receive an enticing offer, it most likely means it's (the owners) their last...

And I don't agree that the owners don't give a damn about hockey, they do care about hockey, that's why their in the position they're in right now, spending alot of $$$ to try to be competitive, and now they've realized the error in their ways, and are trying to fix the problem, for the survival of the game, not to say that this isin't their fault as well, but to say they don't care is false, it's just like saying that the players are just greedy, when it's much more than that
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
no13matssundin said:
How is this a bad thing?
I think it's different for hockey. Guaranteed contracts in the NHL are different because it's a long season whereas in the NFL it's a short regular season with a week in between each game. In theory it sounds great to us fans, but you can't expect a player to perform his best every game for 82 games.

My own preference is that no player should be signed beyond two years as an alternative to guaranteed contracts.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
Well, you got part of the answer right...the players want to play hockey, you got that right, and despite what they say, they realize that the owners last offer will be their best offer, and Bettman knows that they know this, which is why he's refused to give a drop dead date, like the PA is after...PA is just feeling out the owners right now, PA knows that when they receive an enticing offer, it most likely means it's (the owners) their last...

And I don't agree that the owners don't give a damn about hockey, they do care about hockey, that's why their in the position they're in right now, spending alot of $$$ to try to be competitive, and now they've realized the error in their ways, and are trying to fix the problem, for the survival of the game, not to say that this isin't their fault as well, but to say they don't care is false, it's just like saying that the players are just greedy, when it's much more than that

couple of BS points in there. first, i'd bet the lack of a drop dead date has a LOT more to do with the fact the league will have to give back season ticket money when they cancel the season. that's a lot of money teams have been sitting on and will have to pay back to their fans...they don't want to do that until the last possible second so they can squeeze every bit of interest out of it

and yeah maybe the owners do care (well some of them anyways) but i don't think that has as much to do with the lockout and CBA negotiations as you seem to think. i don't think the owners are trying to save the NHL by doing this, i think they're trying to save their pocket books. and supposedly the driving force behind the whole thing is the small market teams who can't be competative or make a profit without cost certainty, not the teams who have spent a lot of $$ and are now "realizing the error of their ways".
 

acr*

Guest
E.J. Hradek on ESPNews said that he thinks the players will reject this because it's nothing more than window dressing over the same old cap deal
 

davidwii

Registered User
Jan 20, 2005
53
0
acr said:
E.J. Hradek on ESPNews said that he thinks the players will reject this because it's nothing more than window dressing over the same old cap deal


Sure why not say that. He's got a 50/50 shot at being right. I honestly think the news outlets should just post one liners.

"No concrete info as of 1pm" and so on and so forth.

Although I will say its been VERY QUITE since Friday. Which means the last breath of the season has exhaled orrrrrrr....their actually coming close to a conclusion....either way an end is near...hopefully :banghead:
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
acr said:
E.J. Hradek on ESPNews said that he thinks the players will reject this because it's nothing more than window dressing over the same old cap deal

Of course it is.

But because fans want a season so badly, the players are CRAZY if they don't sign it.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Levitate said:
couple of BS points in there. first, i'd bet the lack of a drop dead date has a LOT more to do with the fact the league will have to give back season ticket money when they cancel the season. that's a lot of money teams have been sitting on and will have to pay back to their fans...they don't want to do that until the last possible second so they can squeeze every bit of interest out of it

and yeah maybe the owners do care (well some of them anyways) but i don't think that has as much to do with the lockout and CBA negotiations as you seem to think. i don't think the owners are trying to save the NHL by doing this, i think they're trying to save their pocket books. and supposedly the driving force behind the whole thing is the small market teams who can't be competative or make a profit without cost certainty, not the teams who have spent a lot of $$ and are now "realizing the error of their ways".

It's not BS at all, the NHLPA have been deadline hunting withouth a deadline since this whole thing began, and because Bettman, has not given them that, the players are playing a game... trying to determine whether or not the season will be cancelled, by way of seeing how good the owners offer is, the better the offer from the league, the closer they are to the deadline
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
acr said:
E.J. Hradek on ESPNews said that he thinks the players will reject this because it's nothing more than window dressing over the same old cap deal

It's not a cap. They're being offered a compensation package of base salary and profit sharing. Base salary for the players as a whole indeed is capped. Profit sharing -- which could be a bunch of money -- is not capped.

Nor is total compensation -- base salary plus profit sharing -- capped.

If you hear from the players that it's just a salary cap, they're lying.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
I'm still hoping like hell the following happens:

Bob: Ok, we'll accept that offer, including the cap.
Gary: Great, sign here.
Bob: Ok, when do the games for this season start?
Gary: This season? This season is long gone, the deadline was January 15th. We'll see you in September.
 

Slapshot17

Registered User
Aug 29, 2004
2,055
0
Prince George
It should be the basis for negotiations.

Goodenow can still save face by increasing the cap maximum by a few million and lowering the UFA age. If he can't do that maybe put a franchise player that doesn't count against the cap for each team. This offer should get the ball rolling enough to make a deal. I still don't see why a cap is any better than a 100 percent luxury tax. A cap is going to take all the fun out of trade deadline day, because Salaries will have to match. Getting the guy who will make the difference in your cup run may not be able to happen anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->