Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by hfboardsuser, Jan 4, 2005.
Sounds like it is out of the same playbook as the last NHLPA offer......an offer preceded by player denials of an upcoming offer
One word reply needed to that story. "Impasse". Bring on the replacement players!
I call BS on the part of Rucchin
"Rucchin says their last offer is as far as players are willing to go when it comes to concessions."
NO WAY would the players last offer be "as far as they are willing to go". Give me a break.
I suspect this is of the same mold as last time, the players are going to put forward an offer, but don't want the owners to know about it. Someone leaked it to the media, and now the coverup. The players will do one of the following 2 things with their next offer. They will either
Take the roll back off the table, propose a phased in linkage system with say a 60 Mil cap in year 1, then 55, then 50. This ensures the players that the train keeps rolling for a year or 2, before being taken away.
Their true last ditch effort to save the current system. They would keep the rollback in this proposal, but would offer SIGNIFICANT changes to arbitration, qualifying offers and make the rookie cap exceptions tighter. They might also put an exit clause in the CBA if player salaries go up as the NHL predicts. Instead of the cosmetic changes to the current system the players proposed last time, more drastic measures will be taken. Less than 100% QO, Baseball style arbitration, unlimited owner arbitration etc. would all be in this offer.
Now, neither proposal will be accepted by the NHL. Scenario a) gets them negotiating dollars and cents, which means a deal would be likely to fall out from it. Scenario b) would probably be rejected by the NHL, BUT, if it drastic enough, with the exit clause (Which allows the PA to "Guarantee" their numbers to a certain extent), MAY be taken by the owners.
Even better would be the PA offering BOTH of these at the same time, but that would suprise me.
Good, they dont have to. The NHL threw your proposal in the toilet and came up with some BS numbers they got by using fabricated numbers. The players were willing cut there salaries by 1/4 (find me ANY other company or sport that the players would ever agree to that), bring in the NLRB already, Bettman has made it VERY clear he is not willing to compromise or negotiate with good faith then its time they came into the picture before he kills the league.
Note to bettman...the CBA is a compromise on both sides to come to an agreement..NOT to have it your way and only your way.
Just this year an airline company employees cut their pay 30%, Delta I believe. Delta employees at the time were averaging salaries around 60K-70K though some pilots were over 200K.
And the same could be said about the NHLPA. no cap no cap, and then no strict luxury tax because it will be a cap. All bs cr ap. So your note should not just be to Bettman....
again with the fabricated numbers thing. The NHLPA in effect validated those fabricated numbers by using those numbers as a basis to their proposal and again using those numbers to propose the revenue sharing. If one side truly doesn't believe the numbers are at all accurate they are not going to put them down in writing on something they "hope" will provide the framework of a new CBA. Had the owners accepted the points in that proposal (i know it was never going to happen but still) those numbers would have been in black and white with the NHLPA signatures on the sheet. In a CBA negotiation you do not go anywhere near the other parties numbers unless you believe they are for the large part truthful. If you do base your savings on those numbers to try to entice the opposition you do not put it down in writing that you are using those numbers as they did with the revenue sharing plan contained in the proposal.
Yes the CBA is a compromise however one side always compromises more than the other. When a company is in big trouble the union is the one that loses big and accepts the bulk of the company's terms. BUt again why is it always the owners not willing to negotiate thing...there is a fundamental disagreement on what system whould shape the CBA. Until that is solved neither side is truly going to negotiate. All that has happened on both sides of the fence is that the two groups have negotiated with themselves in the framework of there own offer. The players gave a weak luxury tax system with an impressive rollback that in the end doesn't amount to much. They made concessions certainly but within that system. The owners in the initial system proposals had a 31 mil cap...they came back with a minimum cap of 34 mil and max of 38 mil. An increase of nearly 25% on the max cap and addition and opening of negotiation that any cap system will also have a minimum cap so that player won't get burned by teams icing a $15 million dollar team that currentyl happens. As I said both sides have made concessions in the framework of their own proposals where that framework has already been rejected by the other side. Until one side (I think the players) commit to the other framework nothing will happen...that is the one item that isn't up for negotiation. Every thing else is.
Help me out here, but I dont recall if the players were prepared to keep this same salary scale after the first year of the 25% pay cut.
Do you not think it makes sense for owners of a company to have the majority say in the way it's employee's get remunerated for their services. The players have gotten to big and powerful for their own good and that's why there will be a necessary correction to the process no matter how long it takes.
Players will have to accept a cost linkage system today, tomorrow, next year or 3 years from now. It's going to happen because if the owners back off now they will lose more fan support than if they stand pat and wait it out.
Let me be the first one to call "bullschitte" on Rucchin's statement.
edit: let me be the second one to call "bullschitte" as Egil already beat me to it
Rucchin is just doing his job.
Pretty standard negotiation stuff. Resist & deny until the very last minute, hoping (i.e. throwing a last ditch hail Mary) in the hopes that the owners are listening and change their minds.
The players have too much lose this time around. Once they concede a cap, every thing else will fall into place. There'll be NHL hockey this season. If not, there won't be any hockey until fall of 2006 at the earliest. At that point, the owners can have the majority of players at a fraction of what they're getting paid now.
They can say all they want do all they want, but when its all set and done there will be a cap. Its up to Bob Goodenow to be a smart leader of the players and take what is given now or sit back and do nothing, and then get forced to sign a deal which will pay the players nothing. The salaries will continue to rise and be back to the $1.8 million average in a few years, but there will be restrictions with the payroll ranges. The best deal the NHLPA could of made was back in December each day its gonna get worse and worse and then soon they will be playing under a $2.5 Million cap.
Leave it to a Ranger fan to talk about it being the league's falt. I guess he would know since the Rangers are notorious for paying fourth line players like first line players and actually putting them in their overpayed position. Leave it to a Ranger fan to be for the NHLPA and the overpayed players who practically cover 65% of the NHLPA total revenue for the year. It's one thing to cut your salary below your value. It's another thing to cut your salary down to what you are really worth. You make it sound like the league is not willing to accept anything. The league wants a salary cap. It was agreed upon in the NBA and NFL. So, those players were willing to accept that. Now why wouldn't the NHLPA be willing to accept that in the most underachieving sport today.
BTW: This is coming from a die-hard Ranger fan. Any Questions?
Why is it that you refuse to aknowledge that the NHL took the NHLPA's offer and restructured it? How is eliminating a pay cut for the 349 players making less than $800k equivalent to "throwing it in the toilet?" If you work out the math, the NHL proposed an across-the-board equivalent salary roll-back of around 12%.
Under the League proposal, 658 players would have to rollback less than 24%, 133 players would rollback exactly 24%, and only 65 players would rollback more than 24%. Pardon me, but I don't see that as being unfair.
You'll have to ask the GMs that question.
Unfair? Everyone is equal and she be equal in the CBA....why should the lower level players not have to give up anything but the better player give up so much?? That aint fair in my book. Im my book that just looks like the Owners are trying to get the lower level players on there side...thats all it looks like.
Well, if everyone should be equal under the CBA, perhaps the executive board should be pushing for equal salaries across the board. After all, aren't the players proponents of revenue sharing? Or is what's good for the geese, i.e. owners, not necessarily good for the ganders?
And yes, I am kidding, but if you believe the NHLPA's concern for the grinder is equal to that of the superstar, you're kidding yourself.
Why the Gm's . I'm asking you. If the players did offer that, I can kinda understand your , but if they not, you really gotta give your head a shake.
Until those words "no new proposal" come from Bob Goodenow's mouth himself, then anything else is just posturing.