Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Brent Burns Beard, Feb 20, 2005.
1) While we expected the upper limit number on payroll would increase over the six-year term of the deal as hockey revenues increased, the NHL's position today was that the upper limit would remain a fixed number for six years, regardless of any growth in hockey revenues.
So they never did ditch that Clause # 7 poison pill providing them with linkage upward, but not downward, did they? Screw 'em then, they deserve the vastly lower number they will have to settle for next year.
well, we dont know in what form the PA's expectations were....
would you have the same opinion if the PA said "lets start at 42.5 and move it up 500k each year" ...
Thanks Owners for killing the NHL. Thanks.
Isn't this what's called linkage? I thought that the players were against this all along...now you want it???
Why don't you guys just get a deal done? Haven't you (the players) learned your lessons yet? Things are just gonna get a lot worse (for everyone!) the longer you wait.
Dont' you see that people really don't care as long as a deal is signed at this point? ...and I'm including many of the players in that comment! Don't shoot yourselves in the foot.
Just live to fight another day...a good warrior knows when to retreat for the benefit of his soldiers!
Agreed, I may be misinterpreting. Though the verbage certainly sounds like Clause 7 language to me, especially the 'would remain a fixed number for six years, regardless of any growth in hockey revenues' part, but I agree to hear the final details and hold judgment until then. If you are wrong, then would you not agree that the players really must be on drugs to have come to the table today with that?
Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.
wrong about what ? i was simply suggesting we dont know what form their expectations were in (for this meeting).
i have maintained for a few weeks now that the owners have the players by the short and curly's and the players are idiots for letting it get to that point. i dont see any way the players can come out of this with a deal they like.
well, i see one way, but as long as the NHL doesnt call impasse, it can never be used. the best case scenario now for the PA is an impasse call and being overturned. they could get all their money lost during the lockout back and have the old CBA implemented by the NLRB.
Actually the fixed rate of cap growth is a stronger demand than asking for the cap growth only if the revenues have grown.
3) While we anticipated a minimum team payroll number in our proposal, the NHL was today not interested in providing any minimum team payroll number, but only a maximum number.
this is something that I was hoping the nhl would do. set a minimum at like 30 million and have it escalate over the six years. that way you force these lower payroll teams to spend some money. and if they can't afford it, then get out.
$30 million would be too high for a minimum, $25 million would be ok.
I agree, there should be a floor . . . AND linkage. Have linkage and a floor would not be so potentially problematic even to teams who would be totally above board about properly spending on salaries.
A min at 30 million is far too high. Try 20 million if a cap is set at 45.
1) I guess point #1 depends on what kind of increase the players would want. I guess 500k/year could be workable if the players accept $42.5M to start off with.
2) The big word here is "could". Unless they can draw clear conclusions that shared revenues WILL drop, I don't see much here.
3) There will not be a minimum if there is no linkage.
4) If I was the PA, I would not go under 100% QO. As to salary arbitration, well I could see why the owners would want something better than in the Dec 9th player's proposition. Arbitration should go both ways or there shouldn't be arbitration at all.
Of course it should be a problem. A clause that one-sided should be dismissed, unless the side asking for it is willing to make major concessions elsewhere. If I was negotiating for the league, I'd say, "OK, you can have Clause #7, but the cap in the first year starts at $35 million."
4) While we had anticipated using our Dec. 9/04 system changes, with a couple of exceptions to be discussed, the NHL today outlined more significant exceptions which they were seeking, particularly in the area of salary arbitration and qualifying offers."
this is what killed the deal for the small markets. They don't really care about the salary cap as they will never hit it. If there is a deal that stops the inflationary forces on the salaries, the small markets will buy in. It looks like the nhlpa caved on the cap but wanted to keep the upward pressure on salaries.
30 teams at 45 million is 1.35 billion dollars. This represents 65% of league revenues and that is way too high.
The nhlpa still doesn't get it. They are entitled to about 53% of league revenues so they have to agree to a system that permits this. Next year, they wil agree to a deal that gives them 53% of a much smaller pie.
Contradictory statements, you say the small market teams will never get near the cap then you use the 30 team figure multiplied by the entire cap to justify the over expenditure percentage.
Simply put, the PA only wants linkage if it benefits them.
Are you saying that the league is not serious when it talks about the grave situation hockey is in and how the revenues are going to decline? It is still an issue but the size of this issue is proportional to the expectation of the scale of increase in revenue (if there is any increase). In a way you can view this as a test clause of how honest the NHL is in their gloom-and-doom forecasts.
Not likley with George W. Bush in office.
He never said that. What he is saying is that the league is assuming all the risk. Why the hell should the players have the balls to ask for no risk but all the reward if a miracle should happen. The owners rightly told them to stick it.
Your one that has it right. Good post.
So long as there is 40 years of Supreme court precedent ya they will. The NLRB can't just make up the rules along party lines, they must follow the case law.
I am not denying that it is not fair. Salary cap is not fair either. Why should the players voluntarily agree to limit their earning capacity? What I am saying is that there is hardly any difference between no linkage (what NHL has already agreed to), and only positive linkage (the clause in question), so it is not a big issue for negotiations. Certainly not the stumbling block to cancel the season over.
If NHL believes its own forecasts, that is.
Bingo, and it's BS. The league offered linkage, but ONLY if it goes both ways. If revenues drop then so does the salary cap. It's the only fair thing and the league has been offering this since the beginning.
Of course now the PA would say "well, we don't trust their numbers". But they would trust their numbers if they're going up? Obviously.