Some details on the NHL offer

[Jaded-Fan]

I agree , hopefully they can meet somewhere in the middle IF this type of system is agreed upon in principle .

I still say when all is said and done it'll be a 42-45 mil cap with no minimum required .Escalating taxes starting at 32 mil - 45 mil .

if teams cant survive under this , then move your team to a more lucrative market

Isn't that worse than the unlinked $42 million that they rejected? I am believing more and more that the biggest stumbling block to a deal will be Goodenow having to eventually swallow the same deal or worse and then having to justify to the players who lost a billion and a half dollars turning that unlinked $42 million dollar deal down last year. Or does anyone actually doubt that the eventually deal will be at best as good as and likely worse?

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

This is just unbelievable to me if true. If this is accurate the NHL basically is regressing on there offer. I Still can't believe how you can be pro-owner. It's so funny how the NHL just finds different ways to represent 54% instead of negotiating.

There will be no 2005-06 season.

There will be no 2005-06 season.

There will be no 2006-07 season.

There will be no 2007-08 season.

There will be no 2008-09 season.

I am being enough pessimistic for you.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

this is a Brooks article first of all. so anything he says, you take it with a grain of salt

 

[Pepper]

How about we wait until someone even remotely neutral like Bob McKenzie writes about this? Brooks' articles are nothing but wasted of internet bandwidth, he's a known pro-PA shill who paints everything as anti-NHL & pro-PA.

 

[mooseOAK*]

How is it that Brooks has access to all this inside information? None of the more respected writers seem to like Red Fisher or Bob McKenzie nor even a former league guy like Burke. Odd.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

How is it that Brooks has access to all this inside information? None of the more respected writers seem to like Red Fisher or Bob McKenzie nor even a former league guy like Burke. Odd.

because Brooks is as credible as Eklund

 

[Mess]

How is it that Brooks has access to all this inside information? None of the more respected writers seem to like Red Fisher or Bob McKenzie nor even a former league guy like Burke. Odd.

Well that would depend on Brooks source I would suppose .. What if its someone like Mike Gartner for example from the NHLPA committee. He could be using Brooks (pro-PA) as the leak for the sympathy PR purposes .. Using Burke (pro-owner) or Mackenzie (neutral) does not serve its intended purpose does it .. ??

They would need to get their own sources within the meeting .. and who is to say they don't .. Burke often comes across on TSN during the panel discussions that he has an ear on the inside as does Mackenzie for that matter .. Just they choose what to release and not to ..

 

[Mess]

because Brooks is as credible as Eklund

Is Sportsnet really reporting much differnet then Brooks .. He just did a little math ..

From Sportsnet

NHL includes stiff luxury tax in latest proposal
After meeting for several hours again on Friday, the two sides hope to continue discussions next Tuesday.

Sportsnet.ca -- The National Hockey League tabled a proposal in Thursday's latest round of lockout negotiations with the Players' Associaton, sources told Rogers Sportsnet.

The proposal is believed to include a stiff luxury tax system, with a tax structure adjustable to accommodate the rate and threshold on how the proposed CBA would be working.

There is speculation among hockey circles of a dollar-for-dollar tax with revenue sharing among the NHL generated from this system.

The luxury tax would trigger a hard cap agreement that is expected to come in with a floor of $25-million and a ceiling below $35-million.

Full Article : http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050506_125209_5728

Bettman was quoted as saying average Salary at $ 1.3 mil in the New CBA is all the NHL can afford and linkage at 54%..

If you do the Math yourself just like Brooks did ( $1.3 mil X 22 Players) = $ 28.6 mil Hard Cap wanted by the NHL .. based on payroll tax fees to get up to $35 mil ceiling you would be facing penalties..

Brooks might know that actual penalties more then the dollar for dollar this article says here as they are escalating as reported the higher you go ..

So even at $1 .

Take $35 mil ceiling - $28 mil = $ 7 mil in penalties X 6 year CBA = $42 Mil in fines and penalties at dollar for dollar per team... but apparently the more teams that go to $35 mil the higher the penalties become..

So you can trust Brooks or not .. other articles support his article ..

 

[shakes]

all this for a few teams that shouldnt be in the NHL anyway... PA is not going to accept a cap below 40 million

 

[craig1]

So what are you saying, that it's fair that the NHLPA should be forced to take this 54% garbage deal because the NHL claims it's going to get worse and is sticking by there guns (when in fact they could go to 58% and all 30 teams would still make there precious doe). If the NHL really cared about losing fans and the "pie getting smaller" they would negotiate off this number to get a freaking deal done.

He's not suggesting that the NHLPA is forced to do anything. They aren't. Just like the league is not forced to pay them over $1 million each on average. The league can just say goodbye to current players and start all over.

The former players, who I am sure have more PhD's to go around than you can shake a stick at, can then move on to another career. A career in which their physical prowess will be put to good use digging the ditch for my new Koi pond. On second thought, I'll dig the pond myself and put the savings towards an outdoor kitchen. Instead, they can go bag my groceries at the grocery store....the employees of these stores are unionized and overpaid out here.....they will fit in just fine!!!!!

 

[nyrmessier011]

He's not suggesting that the NHLPA is forced to do anything. They aren't. Just like the league is not forced to pay them over $1 million each on average. The league can just say goodbye to current players and start all over.

The former players, who I am sure have more PhD's to go around than you can shake a stick at, can then move on to another career. A career in which their physical prowess will be put to good use digging the ditch for my new Koi pond. On second thought, I'll dig the pond myself and put the savings towards an outdoor kitchen. Instead, they can go bag my groceries at the grocery store....the employees of these stores are unionized and overpaid out here.....they will fit in just fine!!!!!

Well he kind of is implying that. It would be like me telling you I'll pay you only $4 to mow my lawn, and if you don't do it right away, I'm gonna give you $3.50 to do it. That's how ridiculous the NHL has been with there "negotiations." They started low, and didn't negotiate off it. Instead, they warned the PA --if you don't accept this we're going to regress because hey, that's the economics of the game. CBA negotiations are supposed to be just that, NEGOTIATIONS. Not, we need this, I demand this, give me this or I have to give you less because we'll have less to give you.

 

[txomisc]

Well he kind of is implying that. It would be like me telling you I'll pay you only $4 to mow my lawn, and if you don't do it right away, I'm gonna give you $3.50 to do it. That's how ridiculous the NHL has been with there "negotiations."

Seems perfectly reasonable to me if you no longer have the extra 50 cents to spend.

 

[craig1]

Well he kind of is implying that. It would be like me telling you I'll pay you only $4 to mow my lawn, and if you don't do it right away, I'm gonna give you $3.50 to do it. That's how ridiculous the NHL has been with there "negotiations." They started low, and didn't negotiate off it. Instead, they warned the PA --if you don't accept this we're going to regress because hey, that's the economics of the game. CBA negotiations are supposed to be just that, NEGOTIATIONS. Not, we need this, I demand this, give me this or I have to give you less because we'll have less to give you.

Well, to me, I would have to either accept the offer early on, or move on and accept a new job somewhere else. NHL players are not slave labor, and last I checked they were being offered more than minimum wage. Therefore, it is their choice to play hockey. Just because they are professional hockey players does not automatically deem them deserved of excess millions. It's a marketplace. If the owners are unwilling to pay what the players want, then the owners don't have to pay. If the players are not happy with the offer, they can go do something else. THe owners, in turn, will find players whom are willing to accept an offer of employment. It's a business, not an entitlement.

The players rejected the owners offfer. The owners are not legally bound to improve their offer. In fact, it is within their right to reduce it as they see fit.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me if you no longer have the extra 50 cents to spend.

then i guess you will mow the lawn your self.

dr

 

[HF2002]

then i guess you will mow the lawn your self.

dr

I'll mow the lawn for $3.00.

 

[Steve L*]

Well he kind of is implying that. It would be like me telling you I'll pay you only $4 to mow my lawn, and if you don't do it right away, I'm gonna give you $3.50 to do it. That's how ridiculous the NHL has been with there "negotiations." They started low, and didn't negotiate off it. Instead, they warned the PA --if you don't accept this we're going to regress because hey, that's the economics of the game. CBA negotiations are supposed to be just that, NEGOTIATIONS. Not, we need this, I demand this, give me this or I have to give you less because we'll have less to give you.

No its not, its like a bar offering to pay you $15 an hour but you refuse to work, they still have to pay the bills but have no income, a month later they can only afford $10 an hour, they say it will only get worse as people are finding other bars to spend their money on. You piss about for month and eventually your choice is $5 an hour or nothing.

You have lost several months of wages and have to accept an offer massively inferior to what you could have had before.

Now because all these people are drinking elsewhere, your wages arent going up for a long time because the bar cannot afford it. If only youd taken the 1st offer....

 

[Jarqui]

I can't get to excited about a Brooks article. Not only because you always have to be concerend with the accuracy of what he says but because you also have to be concerned with what he didn't tell you. There's no sense getting too wrapped up in what is likely half a story with questionable accuracy.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'll mow the lawn for $3.00.

except no one would pay $0.50 to watch you do it ... where as if you pay the other guy the $4.00 he is asking, there is a much greater chance people will pay $6.00 to watch it.

if the NHL wants to sell NHL hockey, they will need NHL calibre hockey players. otherwise, who will pay NHL ticket prices to watch USHL calibre hockey.

dr

 

[Crazy_Ike]

except no one would pay $0.50 to watch you do it ... where as if you pay the other guy the $4.00 he is asking, there is a much greater chance people will pay $6.00 to watch it.

Except we have already seen that that doesn't cut it, that not enough people are paying that $6.00 he thinks they should be paying, because he just isn't that interesting to watch, not as interesting as he thinks he is.

He shouldn't have gotten the $4.00 in the first place. But he did. And now the market is correcting itself. Except the player doesn't want to accept market realities and still thinks he's in the same ballpark as baseball, football, and basketball.

The players who are still thinking that, well, their egos are in for a shock when/if they come back.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Except we have already seen that that doesn't cut it, that not enough people are paying that $6.00 he thinks they should be paying, because he just isn't that interesting to watch, not as interesting as he thinks he is.

He shouldn't have gotten the $4.00 in the first place. But he did. And now the market is correcting itself. Except the player doesn't want to accept market realities and still thinks he's in the same ballpark as baseball, football, and basketball.

The players who are still thinking that, well, their egos are in for a shock when/if they come back.

no, the lawnmower guy used to ask for 6.50 for the lawn, now he wants 4.00.

still, the point remains, the NHL are not structuring their offers in any manner that will see this come to a resolution anytime soon.

hey, if thats what the NHL wants, the work stoppage to continue, then i guess their strategy is working.

dr

 

[Crazy_Ike]

He can want $4.00 all he wants, if the owner only has $3.00 to give, the player can sit on his arse until the cows come home, he'll never get the $4.00. And whether or not YOU believe that's all they can, as a group, afford, THEY believe it, and THEY have the numbers to back their belief up, numbers the players refuse to look at, rather like young children putting their fingers in their ears.

And not only is he frittering away his $3.00 he could have had, he's making those who need the $3.00 far more than him (those players just getting into the market) also suffer, along with those players who are just barely able to get into the $3.00 leagues and who may never get $3.00 again due to the up and comers taking their jobs away.

Pretty damn selfish of those players holding out for $4.00...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

He can want $4.00 all he wants, if the owner only has $3.00 to give, the player can sit on his arse until the cows come home, he'll never get the $4.00. And whether or not YOU believe that's all they can, as a group, afford, THEY believe it, and THEY have the numbers to back their belief up, numbers the players refuse to look at, rather like young children putting their fingers in their ears.

And not only is he frittering away his $3.00 he could have had, he's making those who need the $3.00 far more than him (those players just getting into the market) also suffer, along with those players who are just barely able to get into the $3.00 leagues and who may never get $3.00 again due to the up and comers taking their jobs away.

Pretty damn selfish of those players holding out for $4.00...

i suppose ... but thats there leverage .... who are you to decide what another man should earn. if the owners want the group of people in the NHLPA to wear their jersey, they will have to bring something to the table other than what they have brought for the last year or so.

isnt that clear ?

ok, so if they dont want that group of players, get on with another group, but stop wasting everyone's time making offers to people who arent interested in what you are offering.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

who are you to decide what another man should earn.

We aren't deciding, the market is.

NHLPA members have gotten a crash course in the true value of their services without the cushy CBA inflating their worth.

Not sure they've awoken to the reality of the situation yet, but some appear to be putting 2 and 2 together and have realized how radically their situation has changed.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

How exactly is the NHL regressing on its offer? What offer are you talking about? The NHL made it very clear only linkage would be on the table after a certain point - that is where we are now.

Think about it.
The NHL is saying this:
Take our piece of crap offer, because if you don't, we'll starve the game, and our next offer will have to be worse.

The players are saying: we dare ya.

And what is happening?

The league's negotiation strategy could spell doom for the NHL.

Yeah, the players are losing out. Big time.
But they're not losing anything they already have. They're losing money they still hadn't earned.

If the NHL owners lose this fight, they might potentially lose their entire investments in the game.

Course, those billionaires and their accountants will find a way to screw the rest of us in bankruptcy court and with the IRS.

 

[Optimist*]

Think about it.
The NHL is saying this:
Take our piece of crap offer, because if you don't, we'll starve the game, and our next offer will have to be worse.

The players are saying: we dare ya.

And what is happening?

The league's negotiation strategy could spell doom for the NHL.

Yeah, the players are losing out. Big time.
But they're not losing anything they already have. They're losing money they still hadn't earned.

If the NHL owners lose this fight, they might potentially lose their entire investments in the game.

Course, those billionaires and their accountants will find a way to screw the rest of us in bankruptcy court and with the IRS.

Owners will stay out till the players take the deal owners can afford. Yes, its all around the 54% deal, because thats what the game can afford. The longer the players wait, the more they lose. The owners can afford to wait forever. Its that simple. Its a shame they didnt understand what most people did a long time ago. They could have had a better deal and saved the money they lost last year. The question is, are they dumb enought to do it again?