Owners Should Offer 20% Salary Increase

If the 24 percent reduction on current salaries under contract is garnering so much PR, and the NHL will only look bad PR-wise if they don't offer a luxury tax and instead continue with the cost certainty mantra, then maybe the NHL should propose this:

(1) 20% increase in all salaries currently under contract,

(2) salary cap along the lines of what the owners have sought but not quite as harsh as the original version (or in the alternative a much much more onerous luxury tax with a $1 per $1 on anything over $35 or $40 million and even more at the $50 and $60 million level than the players have proposed),

(3) a much more owner-friendly arbitration or no arbitration rights, and

(4) the other owner-friendly changes proposed by the players.

Great PR move, eh? But sounds absurd, doesn't it? Or does it. Yes, some players under contract will get a raise with the most going to Jagr - $2 million. And teams like Toronto with still a lot of players under contract may have to pay $12 million or so more than otherwise. And for team with few players under contract will pay even less (e.g., the Caps currently have players under contract at around $20 and therefore will pay an extra $4 million this year).

But wait. We've got half a season at most this year. So, Jagr will only get $1 million more. Toronto will spend $6 million or so more. It will cost the Caps $2 million more this year. And certainly the current teams with more of the high-priced players are on average in a better financial position to pay this increase.

Next year it will cost the teams perhaps no more and maybe considerably less because while it will be a full season, a significant number of additional players will no longer be under the same contract. The following year the detrimental financial effect on the owners will be still less.

In the meantime, the long-term parts of the proposal will be significantly benefiting the owners on the bottom line.

And so much for the players' big PR move with the 24 percent reduction.

Of course, I don't see the owners being slick enough to offer this. Instead, I could see them offering a less harsh salary cap than their previous pre-Sept 15 offer or, alternatively, a much harsher luxury tax than the players' offered. And serious changes to the arbitration system. And due to the 24 percent offer by the players, some more of the interested public may start to side with the players.

But I don't think the 24 percent reduction is that big a concession in the grand scheme of a five to ten year CBA that still greatly benefits the players' ability and opportunity to raise salaries significantly each year, and that is why I threw out the 20 percent increase to show from a different perspective, why it is not that big when you consider (1) only half a season of salary this year for those under an existing contract, (2) a large percentage of the players aren't under contract anyway, or their contract will end after this year, and so their bargaining will be subject to the new limitations in the new CBA.

 

Yes, that's exactly what the NHL needs.

Just find a cap number that is fair to both sides.

 

Well, Monty, I think that is a great plan. Seriously! #3 would need some working out, but other than that, it's great. I would really love seeing the ignorant sportscasters on ESPN and FOX try to figure that one out. :lol They are so clueless about the whole thing, they might actually have to do some research to understand what they are reporting.

 

dumb

You could also just find responsible GM's and owners who understand the concept of a budget.

 

The GMs understand the concept of a budget and everybody uses exactly as much money as he can, that's the problem...

 

I believe a 5% to 0% rollback would be great for NHL PR-wise, that would make the players realize they want a working system, not to downright cut player salaries just like that.

I think we're going to see $35M 100% tax, no arbitration, entry-contract bonus cap and a 5% rollback.

 

These stupid Gms are always trying to win all of the time. That's messed up.

 

0% rollback would be better. The Gms gave these guys their contracts, they should honor them. I really like the $35M 100% tax, though.

 

Given that the players were less then thrilled with giving up 24%, by coming back with an offer to roll back 5% or even 0% might win some over.

Then they may be more receptive to an actual negotiation

 

Lets give in to the greedy players.
1- Accept all their concessions except

salary tax

Lets go for $1.50 over 35M
$2.00 over 45M
$10.00 over 55M
P.S. A team must spend 30M to qualify for the salary tax rebate

An honest offer, and lets see the whining begin !!

 

Then how can they claim to be losing money ? That's what a budget is , no ???

 

what are you going to do about QO's, Rookie Salaries/bonuses, length of contracts, two way(baseball) or one way(the way its been) arbitration, how many times a player can go to arbitration BEFORE UFA age, age of Free Agency ... that's a pretty good tax structure

 

I think they should accept all concessions and simply specify that any team that is over the $40 mill, cant sign any players until they move under. Either that or propose a reduced rollback with the above clause.

 

Guys like Melnyk who wants to slash his payroll and balance the books (and whatevery comes with that in terms player personnel changes).

 

This is the only point pro PA guys can really come up with.

First of all, different teams have different budgets. Richer teams can afford to pay more for players. This inturn ruins it for teams with less money through arbitration and general negotiations. There are major problems with the system that need to be fixed including qualifying offers.

And if you fully expect that the owners will act responsibly, and keep salaries low if they accepted this proposal. Why wouldn't you consider putting a system in place that would override the system problems including overspending by GM's. I just don't understand your logic. I know Goodenow doesn't want cost certainty because he knows then, that his players won't make the money back that they offered to give up.