NHLPA Press conference called for 7:45pm ET
- Thread starter Jazz
- Start date
- Status
barnburner said:
Isn't it possible that the NLRB would see this offer as a tranparent attempt to implement their cap on a 6 month delay?
Ziggy Stardust said:
Right, and neither has Bettman. Up until the meeting in Chicago with Linden and Hotchkiss, neither side proposed anything workable or acceptable to the other side. That's why we are still where we are.
The NHL claimned the new collective bargaining agreement would begin with the union's Dec. 9 proposal - which featured a luxury tax - then evolve into the league proposal of Feb. 2 - based on a salary cap - if it was deemed that the union's model no longer worked. It is up to the onwers soleley to determine if it "worked" and they have control
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
first of all, the NHL offer was BS
second, what happened to the 8:30 PC? Is it going to be covered anywhere?
second, what happened to the 8:30 PC? Is it going to be covered anywhere?
rwilson99 said:Yay!
We got spirit!yes we do!
Dueling press conferences... where is Zell Miller when you need him.
Freezerburn
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2003
- 7,157
- 16
Wetcoaster said:
Word. I am a pro-owner person but this proposal was pure fluff. I wouldn't have accepted it if I were the PA.
That being said I think the framework of going with the PA's proposal and then switching to the league's if triggers are met is an excellent idea, and probably the best to date. The issue lies in the triggers that the league set up. Its odd that they say "if these are met" when in fact some of them have already been met. There is room to improve upon the triggers thats for sure.
richardn
Registered User
Wetcoaster said:
This is exaxtly what I got out of the NHL's proposal as well. It is nothing more then a PR gesture to make Bob look like he won't even accept his own offer. When really it is the NHL's Cap offer under his proposal because the four triggers are triggers that would all fall into the economics of Gary's Hard cap system. So Gary would get his cap guaranteed based on the four triggers.
chiavsfan
Registered User
neelynugs
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 35,439
- 9,900
Wetcoaster said:
public perception will be that goodenow rejected his own proposal. the fact is, a majority of people who follow hockey will wind up in the owners' corner when all is said and done, and one wonders how long it'll be until the PA bends over and takes a good paddling. here's hoping it happens soon. "who's...your...daddy?" right now, bettman is. it's the owners' world, and the PA is just livin' in it
Freezerburn
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2003
- 7,157
- 16
Egil
Registered User
The NHL's proposal wasn't "fluff". It certainly wasn't designed to be accepted by the PA, but it is designed to be negotiated off of. That was the point of the NHL proposal, to negotiate a proposal using the Player ideas, that the PA would guarantee in some way, shape or form, nominally by a trigger to a true linkage proposal. The NHL needs to move its numbers around, AS does the PA, but the FRAMEWORK for a deal is here, in front of us.
Trottier
Very Random
Freezerburn said:
My new favorite poster...one who has the intellect and courage to look beyond his own point of view.
I agree 100%. The framework is there. However, the triggers, at least to this observer, seem exceedingly restrictive. As presented, they essentially put the NHLPA and league "one false move" away from transitioning to the owner's desired (and NHLPA-rejected) proposal.
Leafer4Life
Go Leafs Go!
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Here's a couple of negotiable ideas:
Idea 1) Hire an independent arbitrator in equal pay of the league and PA to watch the league for the next 2 full seasons. He must have full access to the teams (and co-ownered, related entities, like TV networks) books. At the end of the 2006-2007 season, he will make a determination on whether or not the system is working. If it is working, then he continues watching for another 2 years... etc etc. Once the changeover occurs, the league goes 4 years before the CBA expires.
Idea 2) the player costs got up to 75%, the league wants them at 55%... I say that the changeover kicks in at 63%. This season won't count by the way, because of the largely decreased revenue. That and the payroll disparity, set at 40-45%, should be the only determining factors. I want to say that they should be both determing factors, one won't changeover without the others, but that might be unfair to the owners.
Idea 1) Hire an independent arbitrator in equal pay of the league and PA to watch the league for the next 2 full seasons. He must have full access to the teams (and co-ownered, related entities, like TV networks) books. At the end of the 2006-2007 season, he will make a determination on whether or not the system is working. If it is working, then he continues watching for another 2 years... etc etc. Once the changeover occurs, the league goes 4 years before the CBA expires.
Idea 2) the player costs got up to 75%, the league wants them at 55%... I say that the changeover kicks in at 63%. This season won't count by the way, because of the largely decreased revenue. That and the payroll disparity, set at 40-45%, should be the only determining factors. I want to say that they should be both determing factors, one won't changeover without the others, but that might be unfair to the owners.
Last edited:
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Wetcoaster said:
Thank you, I was trying to word that as well but you wrote it much better than me. Thats EXACTLY what it is. I dont understand how people don't see that the triggers are actually the CAP cause if you go over any of that, it results in the cap. So in essence the triggers are the cap. It's a neat idea and could work if all these numbers are negotiated big time, but people saying "NHLPA rejected their own proposal" is just stupid cause just LOOK at the triggers. I mean what if the NHLPA offered they accept the NHL's proposal but if the salary floor every goes down to 30 million the luxury tax shall be implemented or some hooplah like that.
Bettman said they were invited to talk tonight and said yes.Leafer4Life said:Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.........
Freezerburn
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2003
- 7,157
- 16
Egil said:
Perhaps "fluff" was the wrong word to use. I was trying to make referenece to the fact that it was not really a feasible deal in the PA's eyes. Like someone stated earlier, it was the NHL's proposal with a new hat. I fullheartedly agree that this framework could be the most favourable to both parties of the concepts presented previously.
The agreement that I most people on this board have been talking about for a long time is there for the taking, and the ball is in the PA's court. Essentially, the NHL gave in to playing without linkage and accepted the PA's 12/9 proposal, but said we doubt it could work so we are putting 4 triggers on it that would result in our proposal if anything goes wrong.
What I hope happens: The PA should come back with a vartiation of the 12/9 proposal that COULD work. The NHL has accepted to play under a luxury tax at least for some time, and in return the PA should come back at the NHL by improving the 12/9 proposal. This would have benefits for both sides. The PA would be less likely to have their proposal fail and end up with a linkage/hard cap. The NHL would get a better deal than the one they just accepted.
I think both sides could agree on an improved 12/9 proposal. Now, the only problem that remains is the triggers. The PA obviously doesn't want them there. So, the PA should propose to play under a hard cap, something 45 or 50 million and in return the NHL drops the triggers. With that hard cap, salaries would never get so out of control that the NHL would need their triggers to get linkage. Would end up with the luxury tax and the hard cap after it, around 45 or 50 mil. It's the best deal and the PA needs to propose it now.
What I hope happens: The PA should come back with a vartiation of the 12/9 proposal that COULD work. The NHL has accepted to play under a luxury tax at least for some time, and in return the PA should come back at the NHL by improving the 12/9 proposal. This would have benefits for both sides. The PA would be less likely to have their proposal fail and end up with a linkage/hard cap. The NHL would get a better deal than the one they just accepted.
I think both sides could agree on an improved 12/9 proposal. Now, the only problem that remains is the triggers. The PA obviously doesn't want them there. So, the PA should propose to play under a hard cap, something 45 or 50 million and in return the NHL drops the triggers. With that hard cap, salaries would never get so out of control that the NHL would need their triggers to get linkage. Would end up with the luxury tax and the hard cap after it, around 45 or 50 mil. It's the best deal and the PA needs to propose it now.
Freezerburn said:There is supposed to be a presser? I wasn't even aware...
Ther are two releases on the NHLPA site, one referring to the CC, the second is referring to a PC at their offices @8:30
nyrmessier011
Registered User
nyr7andcountings idea...
is what i am also hoping for...maybe the nhl knows that they will counter with dec 9th improvement with a cap around mid 40's...and in return they will take away triggers (which are a slap in the face to the PA cause obviously that deal just gives the PA one year of happiness and they get there deal in 07-08)
is what i am also hoping for...maybe the nhl knows that they will counter with dec 9th improvement with a cap around mid 40's...and in return they will take away triggers (which are a slap in the face to the PA cause obviously that deal just gives the PA one year of happiness and they get there deal in 07-08)
- Status
