PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..
- Thread starter Drury_Sakic
- Start date
- Status
Look, the PA isn't going to completely roll over.
They've already made more than there fair share of the compromise here. And each time, the owners slap them in the face, by saying, "yes, we'll take your rollback, PLUS ***."
Or yes, we're glad that you've seen it our way and are willing to agree on a salary cap, but it must be at our number, or the season is lost.
Or, take this offer because all further offers will be much smaller.
If I'm the PA, and I've all ready lost a season, why would I even bother responding to this sort of nonsense?
Because I want my guys playing hockey, and they want to play hockey. And they want to help the league, but they don't want to shoulder the entire burden.
My offer goes like this:
Luxury tax, dollar for dollar, at $38 Million. Hard Cap at $52 Million, with provisions that the cap will rise as median team revenues rise.
We are willing to concede a little on qualifying offers ... Team must offer 105 percent on every qualifying offer with one exception ... Once, in a players career, we are willing to see a 75 percent qualifying offer recognized.
We are willing to make some changes to arbitration.
UFA begins one year earlier in return for our concessions.
Exclusive rights to European draft picks reduced to 3 years,
We are always near our phone when you are prepared to actually negotiate.
They've already made more than there fair share of the compromise here. And each time, the owners slap them in the face, by saying, "yes, we'll take your rollback, PLUS ***."
Or yes, we're glad that you've seen it our way and are willing to agree on a salary cap, but it must be at our number, or the season is lost.
Or, take this offer because all further offers will be much smaller.
If I'm the PA, and I've all ready lost a season, why would I even bother responding to this sort of nonsense?
Because I want my guys playing hockey, and they want to play hockey. And they want to help the league, but they don't want to shoulder the entire burden.
My offer goes like this:
Luxury tax, dollar for dollar, at $38 Million. Hard Cap at $52 Million, with provisions that the cap will rise as median team revenues rise.
We are willing to concede a little on qualifying offers ... Team must offer 105 percent on every qualifying offer with one exception ... Once, in a players career, we are willing to see a 75 percent qualifying offer recognized.
We are willing to make some changes to arbitration.
UFA begins one year earlier in return for our concessions.
Exclusive rights to European draft picks reduced to 3 years,
We are always near our phone when you are prepared to actually negotiate.
AM said:
Finalists in the last four years?
Calgary Tampa Jersey Anaheim
COnference finalists?
Ottawa Minnesota and whoever Calgary played last year.
I'd say that's pretty darn good.
AM said:
How many teams do you generally blame for sending salaries out of whack?
If the cap was $50 Million, you've cut into teams like Detroit, NY, Colorado, Toronto etc.
This would substantially lower salary pressures in the league.
Is this about getting a deal done?
Or is this about idealogues?
My god, are we going to start with that gibberish again. Do an analysis of who has won the Stanley Cup, made it to the final 4 & who made the playoffs, all in the last 10 years & then come back & play. You may actually become informed on that topic if you take the time .Newsguyone said:
Well actually, I do. Out of the "final 4", 3 would be considered "small markets", or at least NOT considered to be rich. And the winner only spend what, like $35M?AM said:
However you can't use one year to define the results. But, that is why it will change under this guy's proposal. I don't really understand how you can think the balance would be the same as last year. Last year the salary range was like $25M-$75M(about). Under this deal we are looking at $30M-$50M. That's a huge improvement.
And as I said, even if teams spend the absolute lowest they can spend, they are still competative with a team spending only $20M more than them(and spending that much more will only be 5-8 teams). Last year the cup winner was competing against teams spending $40M above them...what makes you think that the same team won't be competative with teams spending only $20M more than them?
And if most teams are spending $37M-$43M, even the poorest of teams are still EXTREMELY competative with that. The difference between $30M-$32M and $38m-$42M, most of the time, isn't skill it's simply the age of your team. As players get older they make more, even if they aren't getting much better. The difference between the lowest spenders and most of the league is going to be 2 or 3 players who are 28 and have years of RFA raises under their belt whereas the low spending team has those players at age 22 or 23. It doesn't necesarily mean that the team spending $38M instead of $30M is better.
So I don't really understand how you can compare the competative balance in this deal to what it was under the old CBA, it's clearly much improved and would probably be the most financially competative league.
And since you agree with the rest it's pretty clear that $50M is NOT too high for $2.1B in revenues. Your only problem is the $20M range which really isn't that big of a problem and can be solved through decent revenue sharing.
IMO
for 2.1 billion of revenue...
a 47-48 cap is not asking too much...
50 would be pushing it..
for 2.1 billion of revenue...
a 47-48 cap is not asking too much...
50 would be pushing it..
Mess
Global Moderator
I say this is getting us nowhere ..
Lets go back to the Old CBA .. Lets extend it another 6 years and lets play hockey in the fall on time .. That is the next offer the NHLPA should make ..
The Owners have extended it twice .. I say third time is the charm ..
This time the GM's have it figured out and won't make the same mistakes again
Lets go back to the Old CBA .. Lets extend it another 6 years and lets play hockey in the fall on time .. That is the next offer the NHLPA should make ..
The Owners have extended it twice .. I say third time is the charm ..
This time the GM's have it figured out and won't make the same mistakes again
FLYLine27*
BUCH
The Messenger said:
They should extend it for a year...just to make sure the game starts on time and hold CBA meetings 2 times a week from now till they get a new one.
CantHaveTkachev
Legends
The Messenger said:
didnt they extend it in order for the Players to be able to play in the Olympics?
I know you guys want hockey no matter what cost, so your precious Leafs can overspend and inflate the market with crappy old guy.....but PLEASE!
this is about the longterm health of the league
How about a 45 million cap on the old CBA if no deal is worked out by Aug. 1st...thats time enough to work out a deal...
Bob and Gary are locked in a hotel together, and simply cannot leave whatever floor they are on untill a new CBA is worked out. Better yet... they share a room....2 beds though(don't want them to get TOO close
)
Works for me..
Bob and Gary are locked in a hotel together, and simply cannot leave whatever floor they are on untill a new CBA is worked out. Better yet... they share a room....2 beds though(don't want them to get TOO close
)Works for me..
Drury_Sakic said:How about a 45 million cap on the old CBA if no deal is worked out by Aug. 1st...thats time enough to work out a deal...
Bob and Gary are locked in a hotel together, and simply cannot leave whatever floor they are on untill a new CBA is worked out. Better yet... they share a room....2 beds though(don't want them to get TOO close
Works for me..
It could work. Now that they are both on the same philosophy as far as cap/linkage, why not just put in an arbitrary cap for one year until the new CBA is signed. Would take a lot of media attention and pressure off the two sides because there would be hockey, which might make is easier to get something done.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
Newsguyone said:
From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. *SEVEN* of those cups, yes, close to 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams!
competitive balance my ass, another urban myth spread by pro-NHLPA apologists.
Last edited:
Pepper said:
Wake up dude, you're living in a dream world.
Let's wait until NHLPA makes their 2nd official offer, so far they have only handed only 1 official (that december 9th joke of an offer) offer while NHL has made several.
How come every time Gary wakes up in the morning, he gets credited with making an offer? He sends a fax, offer! He rejects a PA proposal, offer! Spells "salary cap" six different ways on a bar napkin, six offers! Says "let's use the PA proposal until Tuesday automatically triggers our proposal", offer!
But there's still people like Rosey who actually think the PA has only made one offer?
(1) Pre-lockout offer, 5% rollback
(2) Dec 9 proposal, the most in depth one presented by either side
(3) $52 million salary cap
(4) $49 million salary cap
That's at least 4 by my count, not to mention the only time it appeared that progress had been made was when the PA presented the $30-50 million range as a framework a few weeks ago, when it looked for the first time like this might be settled soon until Jacobs went nutty.
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
If the NHL could turn the calender back to 1985 when the NHL controled everything with the Zeagle alliance,they would do it.It appears that's the only way the NHL will make a deal.They want the perfect CBA with the players giving back and giving back while the big market owners don't want to share revenue with the small market teams
go kim johnsson said:
The players perception of an acceptable offer seems to be shifting over time though.
How long until the same basic offer gets them to "kill" Goodenow?
Better yet, how long until the players feel they'll get a better offer once they "kill" Goodenow?
i am dave
Registered User
Mess
Global Moderator
Or have you ever asked yourself if its just YOUR perception that is changing and the people doing the negotiating are actually going through the process of collective bargaining, which includes a whole lot of posturing some of it designed for the explicit purpose of blocking or effecting moves by one side or the other ??Thunderstruck said:
Both sides have been very careful when to counter and what offer to counter, and which to reject and offer a new concept on, which to file complaints on and which ones to file recognition applications on with the appropriate LRB. Some moves and concessions made only on paper alone to avoid "Bad Faith" bargaining claims. All strategic moves to effect an IMPASSE CBA situation from their own side of the dispute.
You know YOU'RE the one suggesting that Goodenow be removed alone. All that is all based on Domi and Roenick comments that presented the blanket statement that said BOTH sides MAY need to be replaced if they can't get a deal done, while still firing bitter barbs at Bettman in the process.
Its your perception that you have created in your own head alone that has changed .
The Messenger said:
Really?
What was the owners starting point in these negotiations? Where are they now?
What was the PA's starting point in these negotiations? Where are they now?
One side is being steadily drawn towards the others postition and we both know which one is moving. Even if Bobby is only changing his stance to avoid impasse, he's come much further than the NHL and has given up on all of the philosophical differences.
Orr is a NHLPA certified agent and a hockey legend. He is openly questioning Goodenow's leadership.
Conway is an NHLPA mouthpeice. He has openly suggested that Goodenow needs replacing.
The well connected McKenzie is suggesting that Goodenow may need to be replaced for a deal to get done. Do you think he made that statement without talking to any players?
Bobby gonna have some splainin' to do, startin' on the 24th.
- Status
