Quote From Daly sums up negotiations to date

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer, said the league was taking the new offer seriously.
''They made a serious proposal, which I would suggest was the first one in this process,'' he said.

So after months, we've had one serious proposal.

Since the NHL was the party that started the lockout, shouldn't they have made a serious proposal or two by now?

Personally, I think the PA made a mistake with this negotiation. They should have stayed at 10-15 percent on the rollback but given up more in terms of luxury tax, qualifying offers and arbitration.

Click to read more...

 

[Sammy*]

So after months, we've had one serious proposal.

Since the NHL was the party that started the lockout, shouldn't they have made a serious proposal or two by now?

Personally, I think the PA made a mistake with this negotiation. They should have stayed at 10-15 percent on the rollback but given up more in terms of luxury tax, qualifying offers and arbitration.

Yawn.
Your bias is ridiculous. Anyone with any sense knows he's referring to the players proposals, not the NHL's.

 

[Drake1588]

The union is giving up too much for the first serious concession, but it achieves two things: 1) the NHLPA's PR just skyrocketed and pressure is squarely on the league; and 2) the league's ability to walk away and then try to get impasse declared has probably now been deep sixed permanently.

I think the league has to negotiate a settlement now, because the expected impasse arguments probably aren't going to work.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yawn.
Your bias is ridiculous. Anyone with any sense knows he's referring to the players proposals, not the NHL's.

but true none the less ...


dr

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Yawn.
Your bias is ridiculous. Anyone with any sense knows he's referring to the players proposals, not the NHL's.

Ever heard of a freudian slip?

It's quite clear to everyone with intelligence that the owners haven't made a serious offer yet.
They made the decision to back the players into a corner with an unreasonable offer ($31 Million hard cap? You think that was SERIOUS???)

Conversely, the players didn't make a serious counteroffer right away either.

So yes, this is the first SERIOUS offer from either side.
I expect the the owners to deliver a SERIOUS offer next week.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

The union is giving up too much for the first serious concession, but it achieves two things: 1) the NHLPA's PR just skyrocketed and pressure is squarely on the league; and 2) the league's ability to walk away and then try to get impasse declared has probably now been deep sixed permanently.

I think the league has to negotiate a settlement now, because the expected impasse arguments probably aren't going to work.

Imagine you are Mike Illitch, or the owner of the Leafs, or whoever.

24 percent? Hmm. I could live with that.

I imagine that some owners will break ranks if Bettman ignores this offer.

 

[Drake1588]

Imagine you are Mike Illitch, or the owner of the Leafs, or whoever.

24 percent? Hmm. I could live with that.

I imagine that some owners will break ranks if Bettman ignores this offer.

On the contrary, I think this is a very serious offer, and tend to think the league will be able to extract even more in the next round of negotiations. This is quite favorable to the owners, and contains huge concessions.

 

[MS]

Imagine you are Mike Illitch, or the owner of the Leafs, or whoever.

24 percent? Hmm. I could live with that.

I imagine that some owners will break ranks if Bettman ignores this offer.

Exactly. There are probably 10-15 owners with well-run teams and nice revenue bases who were making money to begin with, and didn't really have any problems with the old system. For those guys, these concessions are like gravy, and I have a difficult time believing they'll be wanting to cancel the season with stuff like this on the table.

 

[Drake1588]

Yes. Now Bettman does not technically need those owners, but does he want discord, especially since this is a very good starting point for a deal? Quite a dilemma.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Imagine you are Mike Illitch, or the owner of the Leafs, or whoever.

24 percent? Hmm. I could live with that.

I imagine that some owners will break ranks if Bettman ignores this offer.

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

The NHLPA put out a great PR product, but as an offer it does not address the needs of the league. At no time did the NHL ask the players to return any of their past earnings. This is 100% smoke screen and shows it works when people like yourself swallow the hook. You are aware that this "give back" is for players only presently under contract? You are aware that there are 30ish percent of the PA that is not under contract, many of them big ticket players, and they are not included in the "give back". All of these guys get to negotiate new contracts and get to do so free of any sort of control mechanism to keep salaries under control. They still have the ability to hold the gun to the head of their teams and hold the fans hostage. The long term needs of the game have not been met and leave the game subject to risk. The deal is great in the short term, but is worse in the long term. From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I agree 1000% with Iconoclast.

I find it ironic that the PA is now offering to give money back, when all along they've been spewing the mantra of "well, nobody put a gun to the owners' heads".

This isn't a monetary dispute. It's a philosophical dispute. The PA refuses to negotiate any system with linkages to revenue, and the owners don't want any part of a system without it.

As far as I'm concerned, we're no closer to a settlement.

 

[SENSible1*]

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

The NHLPA put out a great PR product, but as an offer it does not address the needs of the league. At no time did the NHL ask the players to return any of their past earnings. This is 100% smoke screen and shows it works when people like yourself swallow the hook. You are aware that this "give back" is for players only presently under contract? You are aware that there are 30ish percent of the PA that is not under contract, many of them big ticket players, and they are not included in the "give back". All of these guys get to negotiate new contracts and get to do so free of any sort of control mechanism to keep salaries under control. They still have the ability to hold the gun to the head of their teams and hold the fans hostage. The long term needs of the game have not been met and leave the game subject to risk. The deal is great in the short term, but is worse in the long term. From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

Glad to see someone is paying attention.

 

[ti-vite]

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

The NHLPA put out a great PR product, but as an offer it does not address the needs of the league. At no time did the NHL ask the players to return any of their past earnings. This is 100% smoke screen and shows it works when people like yourself swallow the hook. You are aware that this "give back" is for players only presently under contract? You are aware that there are 30ish percent of the PA that is not under contract, many of them big ticket players, and they are not included in the "give back". All of these guys get to negotiate new contracts and get to do so free of any sort of control mechanism to keep salaries under control. They still have the ability to hold the gun to the head of their teams and hold the fans hostage. The long term needs of the game have not been met and leave the game subject to risk. The deal is great in the short term, but is worse in the long term. From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

Amen

 

[MS]

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

The NHLPA put out a great PR product, but as an offer it does not address the needs of the league. At no time did the NHL ask the players to return any of their past earnings. This is 100% smoke screen and shows it works when people like yourself swallow the hook. You are aware that this "give back" is for players only presently under contract? You are aware that there are 30ish percent of the PA that is not under contract, many of them big ticket players, and they are not included in the "give back". All of these guys get to negotiate new contracts and get to do so free of any sort of control mechanism to keep salaries under control. They still have the ability to hold the gun to the head of their teams and hold the fans hostage. The long term needs of the game have not been met and leave the game subject to risk. The deal is great in the short term, but is worse in the long term. From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

I don't think too many people would claim that this proposal, if implemented, would work as is. But it is significant progress, and a very good jumping off point. With some negotiating on the luxury tax aspect, it's quite feasible that this framework would work to maintain salaries at a reasonable level.

 

[me2]

Exactly. There are probably 10-15 owners with well-run teams and nice revenue bases who were making money to begin with, and didn't really have any problems with the old system. For those guys, these concessions are like gravy, and I have a difficult time believing they'll be wanting to cancel the season with stuff like this on the table.

These concessions just give them 24% more money to spend during the next silly season. Keep the exisiting salaries at 100% and use the 24% reduction only as a base for future contracts.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

i think you did a good job articulating your point, but i dont get this one comment.

From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

how will it actually get worse ? i am interested in the mechanics by which you came to this conclusion.

dr

 

[thinkwild]

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

The NHLPA put out a great PR product, but as an offer it does not address the needs of the league. At no time did the NHL ask the players to return any of their past earnings.

It is nothing like that. Alfie has a signed contract, you know those things you sign because you honour them, and he will lose money he was already granted. It is nothing like getting a deal on a car.

This is 100% smoke screen and shows it works when people like yourself swallow the hook. You are aware that this "give back" is for players only presently under contract? You are aware that there are 30ish percent of the PA that is not under contract, many of them big ticket players, and they are not included in the "give back". All of these guys get to negotiate new contracts and get to do so free of any sort of control mechanism to keep salaries under control. They still have the ability to hold the gun to the head of their teams and hold the fans hostage. The long term needs of the game have not been met and leave the game subject to risk. The deal is great in the short term, but is worse in the long term. From what I have seen, the game will be in worse shape in two years than they are now.

And these players that are RFAs are going to come back, and compare themselves to who? Redden and Jovo now get $3.5-4 mil. What will NYR sign an equivalent player for? How can you not see this?

The long term needs of the game have clearly been met. The market is reset to where the owners arent losing money. Where they wanted it. They have a new framework that will allow them to develop a team on a budget that meets their needs. They have always said they had no choice but to spend the money. What excuse is there now for spending on UFAs only? That they can afford it? Well then, no problem.

I dont see why this framework cant work. The owners may want a lower percentage of revenue sharing, but I cant see how a businessman would turn down an offer like this. Perhaps a child operating a lemonade stand would need cost certainty, but this should be able to work for the NHL.

 

[me2]

It is nothing like that. Alfie has a signed contract, you know those things you sign because you honour them, and he will lose money he was already granted. It is nothing like getting a deal on a car.




And these players that are RFAs are going to come back, and compare themselves to who? Redden and Jovo now get $3.5-4 mil. What will NYR sign an equivalent player for? How can you not see this?

The long term needs of the game have clearly been met. The market is reset to where the owners arent losing money. Where they wanted it. They have a new framework that will allow them to develop a team on a budget that meets their needs. They have always said they had no choice but to spend the money. What excuse is there now for spending on UFAs only? That they can afford it? Well then, no problem.

I dont see why this framework cant work. The owners may want a lower percentage of revenue sharing, but I cant see how a businessman would turn down an offer like this. Perhaps a child operating a lemonade stand would need cost certainty, but this should be able to work for the NHL.

Throw in a
a) 50% cap at $35m
b) 75% cap at $40m
c) $45m semi-hard cap that prevents a team from signing new UFAs or picking up salary in a trade (but allows resigning of existing players)

and we are getting pretty close.

 

[Slow Talking Walter]

Throw in a
a) 50% cap at $35m
b) 75% cap at $40m
c) $45m semi-hard cap that prevents a team from signing new UFAs or picking up salary in a trade (but allows resigning of existing players)

and we are getting pretty close.

where do i sign?

 

[Digger12]

The long term needs of the game have clearly been met. The market is reset to where the owners arent losing money. Where they wanted it. They have a new framework that will allow them to develop a team on a budget that meets their needs.

While I agree that this offer resets the market back to a state where the owners are at least breaking even, I really don't see any new framework in place.

Make that luxury tax something more than the joke it currently is, and maybe you'll have me on board.

IMO this offer was very much a calculated move by the PA, they're hoping to steer the owners into a strong (but not too strong) luxury tax in exchange for lessening the rollback figure. It also serves to drive a wedge further between the big and small market teams, because it seems rather obvious to me that the big boys stand to save a lot more money from this rollback than the smaller teams that have actually tried to stay within a reasonable budget.

It'll be interesting to see the quotes coming from the NHL side this weekend. Perhaps even some owners will step up to the plate.

 

[Sammy*]

You sound like a guy who is really impressed when a car dealer offers to give him $10,000 off the price of a new car... that is priced $20,000 over market value and has a 40% depreciation rate per year. You look at that big front end discount and completey ignore the long term ramifications of the deal and where you'll be by the end of your loan.

.

The man is brainwashed, dont waste your time. Common sense (imagine that) & the owners previous actions tell you that this one time discount will be given back in the very short term. Is does nothing to cure the systemic problem. Sad thing is, the NHLPA has never shown any desire at all to cure the systemic problem, so I dont expect them to start here.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

These concessions just give them 24% more money to spend during the next silly season. Keep the exisiting salaries at 100% and use the 24% reduction only as a base for future contracts.

So what your saying the owners still haven't learned from past mistakes? Maybe it's time for owner to take control of themselves. God what an amazing concept, wonder why it's taken them so long to figure it out. Maybe they are slow learner, i knew not to spend more than i could afford when i was young, i guess that accounting class in HS really paid off. Or maybe i'm just special

 

[Motown Beatdown]

It'll be interesting to see the quotes coming from the NHL side this weekend. Perhaps even some owners will step up to the plate.

Not when they'll be facing a million dollar fine by Bettman, the gag order is still in effect.

 

[pei fan]

The union is giving up too much for the first serious concession, but it achieves two things: 1) the NHLPA's PR just skyrocketed and pressure is squarely on the league; and 2) the league's ability to walk away and then try to get impasse declared has probably now been deep sixed permanently.

I think the league has to negotiate a settlement now, because the expected impasse arguments probably aren't going to work.

Wrong ,Wrong ,Wrong.This will do nothing to stop costs from spiralling out of control in just afew years.That's why Goodenow has no problem doing it.If he's
really serious and was will to drop 24% ,why not jusy give the league the
Revenue link it wants.The reason is because doing it the Goodenow way gives
plenty of loopholes.The loopholes in the last agreement cost the owners big time.
What they really want is to stop the loopholes.The only way to do that is by a
cost certainty / revenue link.

 

[me2]

So what your saying the owners still haven't learned from past mistakes? Maybe it's time for owner to take control of themselves. God what an amazing concept, wonder why it's taken them so long to figure it out. Maybe they are slow learner, i knew not to spend more than i could afford when i was young, i guess that accounting class in HS really paid off. Or maybe i'm just special

You mean that the majority of owners should band together and set up a system that stops irresponsible big spending owners from ruining payscales? Oh hang on, they are.