Poll: Your thoughts on the NHL's latest proposal

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Sinurgy, Feb 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sinurgy

    Sinurgy Rebuilding

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Just curious to see what everyone thinks of the latest proposal by the NHL.
     
  2. Chayos

    Chayos Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Home Page:

    The framework is there but it needs some tweaking to get the plaayers to agree to it.
     
  3. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It definitely could be workable, however I think it needs some significant changes in some areas. The cap as well all know will happen, however it definitely needs tweaking.

    I give the offer a big thumbs down in terms of whether or not they did all they could, however, it's negotiating, and therefor they asked for more than they expect...
     
  4. Kovy274Hart

    Kovy274Hart Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    blogger
    Location:
    Shaolin
    Home Page:
    It's unrealistic to expect the players to accept a hard cap. It's also a little low. I'd raise it a little bit and soften it up. Throw in a luxury tax for the bigger market teams and make it worthwhile. Don't just satisfy the Edmonton's, Pittsburgh's and Calgary's.

    I also don't get how they expect every team to get under that kind of cap if the league started back up.

    It makes no sense whatsoever.


    If they want a cap so badly, it should be reasonable.


    In reality, this offer was put out there for PR. They knew it would get rejected.
     
  5. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Needs to do a little more for the players, particularly on arbitration and qualifying offers, but it's an improvement and should be close to good enough.
     
  6. MS

    MS Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    24,471
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    The league has conceded virtually nothing from it's proposal back in September.

    - They've added a meaningless partnership clause with the players. If the league makes $200 million in a season, that's $75 million over the threshold, and $37.5 million for the players. Divide by 800 players, and you have $45 000/ per player. Next to nothing, relatively speaking. Even if the league does turn a fat profit, which is unlikely.

    - They've come off their ridiculous $33 million hard cap to a $40 million linkage number. If revenues drop next year (which they will, due to negative effects of the lockout), the $40 million linkage figure drops significantly. Linkage is worse than a hard cap for the players.

    - They've added the 24% rollback the players proposed, without giving any concessions in return.

    - They've made no attempt to come up with a formula for revenue sharing amongst owners, and no formula for what consititutes revenue.

    - They've made no concessions in terms of arbitration, entry-level salaries, and qualifying offers. Plus have added a no-holdout provision.


    Essentially this proposal features the exact linkage the owners want, settles every major point in favour of the owners, incorporates the rollback which was supposed to be a cap alternative, and offers nothing in return. All the owners are doing is recycling the same basic proposal over and over, and changing the bells and whistles slightly every time to try and win public approval. They haven't made a single major concession in this whole process. By contrast, the players have made about 5 huge concessions (lower qualifying offers, 2-way arbitration, luxury tax, entry-level salary restrictions, 24% rollback).

    For RFAs, this proposal is almost more restrictive than the deals Eagleson negotiated while in the owners' pocket back in the 1980s.
     
  7. richardn

    richardn Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Crane Operator
    Location:
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Linkage is the backbreaker here. Their is no way the players will sign with that kind of linkage. I am still not sure they would accept any cap but with tahat linkage I can see the cap staying at 20 - 28 Million for the next 5 to 10 years. I don't know why they don't just put in a max player salary at a comfortable level.with revenue sharing amung owners in a luxuary tax sytem.
     
  8. EricBowser

    EricBowser Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Customer/Technical Support
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Home Page:
    MS, What part of BILLION DOLLAR LOSSES over 10 years doesn't sink through with you, other fans and the NHLPA?

    Just because the owners offered a system that you didn't like, doesn't mean the owners are being unfair.

    Same as the NHLPA offer, not being an unfair practice.

    Both sides are on two totally different planes and it won't change until one decides to move off their stance, which will be the players.

    Players must realize, if season is cancelled the owners will be united more than ever and the next CBA proposal in December will be much worse for their bank accounts.

    Face it, NHLPA had it really good for ten years and now NHL is back to restructuring their business plan to a more than fair partnership.
     
  9. Sinurgy

    Sinurgy Rebuilding

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    I don't think they need to win public approval. The PR battle has been a slaughter to this point. In fact as many have all ready pointed out, the image of the players has taken a huge hit and based on recent player comments it's only getting worse. Anyway, personally I think the proposal needs some tweaks but then it should be good enough.
     
  10. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,402
    Likes Received:
    573
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    :handclap:
     
  11. MS

    MS Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    24,471
    Likes Received:
    3,081
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    I understand the losses. But (as I see it at least), the league is not negotiating toward being on an even foothold. They're trying to use the obvious leverage they have over the players to wrangle out an absolute sweetheart deal. Which this would be if it went through. The league's losses aren't just due to player salaries - they're due to rotten arena leases in some markets, poor franchise locations, over-expansion, the disappearance of a quality TV deal, overall poor league marketing and so on. The league is trying to put the whole thing on the players (and then some) to avoid dealing with the other problems they've created. If a deal like this goes through, they've created a profitable league in spite of a decade of awful management, without fixing any of their mistakes. Nice deal if you can get it.

    I agree the players might be forced to cut their losses and accept something along these lines because clearly they have little leverage. But I don't think the owners are being 'fair' and concessions don't need to go nearly this far to have a healthy league. The RFA concessions and entry-level restrictions being discussed, plus a stiff luxury tax over $38-40 million or so, plus a concerted effort from the owners at revenue sharing, would almost certainly fix most of the league's problems. But instead they're sabotaging the season to try for the home run, because they think the PA will eventually cave.
     
  12. shakes

    shakes Pep City

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,404
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Home Page:
    The proposal is calculated. They put in everything they wanted and even some stuff the players offered so that if they try the impasse route, they get, for the time being, linkage, a cap AND the 24% rollback as this will probably be their last proposal.
     
  13. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    138,030
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    215
    I don't know what so bad about adding a soft cap at $42M and making a hard cap at $47M. If you don't want to pay the tax don't go over $42M
     
  14. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I'd have no problem with that, it's not as simple as paying the tax/not paying the tax.
    Fact is what one teams pays affects other teams. It affects their level of competitiveness and it affects the league's salary structure.
    Like I said, this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable compromise, but there are consequences the league may be unwilling the accept. I hope I'm wrong.
     
  15. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    the players have lost just as much money as the owners in the last 10 years, what are the owners going to concede to the players so that also can make up their 1 billion dollar loss ?

    hmm ?

    dr
     
  16. Sinurgy

    Sinurgy Rebuilding

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Ok, I'll bite. What is your angle?
     
  17. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    yup .. this offer was solely designed to ram down the players throats in court.

    it made zero attempt to compromise or to bring the players to the table.

    if the owners wanted to compromise, they would have offered a soft cap at 42m and luxury taxes up to the 50m mark. they would have made the # contingent on salaries only and would have not skewered the 24% rollback offer.

    the 24% BS they just pulled is a major insult to the PA. you think they wouldnt look at that and say, huh ?

    the league had no interest in bargaining for a deal, only negotiating to screw the players.

    its the owners who want to change the system. it behooves them to find the common ground, not the other way around. the playres sais "linkage = no deal". period end of story. what part of that makes the owners think otherwise ?

    just like the last 10 years prove, the owners have no idea how to negotiate. if they did, the league wouldnt have needed to locko ut the players and would have had this labour stoppage resolved.

    i say let the owners rot.

    dr
     
  18. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    how much salary have the players lost this season ? jsut as much as the owners have lost in the last 10 years.

    so both sides can claim equal losses in the last 10 years.

    dr
     
  19. pacde

    pacde Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    too funny :lol:

    Your in agreement that the owners arent losing much money during the lockout I notice ... and the bleeding has just started. Just imagine how long its going to take to rebuild the revenues now - Im going to bet it will take 5 years of pain to get where they were when the lockout started. Another billion perhaps? two?
    what happens if the season gets cancelled and the league has to virtually rebuild its fan base with unpopular players? you might think the lack of popularity will be temporary but I wont forget and neither will most of the people on this board and dozens of others like it across the continent. I think the players are going to be losing money for 5 years while the owners are going to be making money as soon as the doors open for the NHL again. Maybe making money for the first time in years in some markets.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"