The Next NHL offer
- Thread starter Leaf Lander
- Start date
- Status
- Feb 15, 2005
- 5,077
- 3,739
the owners should now go ahead and break the union, Bob and the NHLPA is not looking out for the good of the game
clause 7 was the dumbest thing I have ever read, he wanted to take a 49 million soft cap and luxury tax up based on revenues of a season that would be very low because of the lockout....he kept trying to play his game and he lost
the owners would have been killed on that offer, in the first couple years they would have lost because they gave a huge % to the players...in the last 4 years they would have lost because hockey related revenues would have rose.
clause 7 was the dumbest thing I have ever read, he wanted to take a 49 million soft cap and luxury tax up based on revenues of a season that would be very low because of the lockout....he kept trying to play his game and he lost
the owners would have been killed on that offer, in the first couple years they would have lost because they gave a huge % to the players...in the last 4 years they would have lost because hockey related revenues would have rose.
I don't think you're goning to see any serious offers for quite some time. There's no reason for it now.
Next most likely move is for the league to try and figure out if they can get away with declaring an impass... If they decide not, we are probably in a holding pattern until well into NEXT season...
Next most likely move is for the league to try and figure out if they can get away with declaring an impass... If they decide not, we are probably in a holding pattern until well into NEXT season...
richardn
Registered User
If I were the PA I would come up with a floating cap system. It would be based on a % of ticket sale revenue only. Here is how it would work. The salary cap ceilling would be 65 % of the highest teams gate revenue and the cap floor would be 65 % of the lowest teams gate revenue. Revenue is a trust issue with the players but revenue based on ticket sales is pretty hard to hide. The cap settings would change every year based on the prevous years revenues. So if ticket sales go up salaries increase. If ticket sales go down salaries decrease. The payroll would always allow the owners a fair % of the pie at the same time keep the payrolls linked to revenue. Thoughts anyone.
- Feb 15, 2005
- 5,077
- 3,739
Riddarn said:
Well, I'm actually saying Goodenow should have negotiated against himself yesterday morning and come off 49 and item 7 and gone to 45. He may have, in the past, "always made the final offer" but he had a weak hand here. He actually played that hand pretty well (in that he was in a position to get the most from the owners that they were willnig to give) until the end.
I simply don't understand how he can credibly say to the players that there's a better deal at some date in the future than what they could have got yesterday. And if that's the case, I don't see how he couldn't take what was on the table yesterday (which I think was 45).
Digger12
Gold Fever
IMO the only hope for the players at this point is to take the owners' last offer or offer something very close to it, because at this point their leverage has been obliterated. Why should the owners offer them ANYTHING at this point? Even if this season is lost, they can at least have it done so that next season can start properly.
My prediction is that the players will come back with an offer in the next week or so, geared towards next season, likely in the 44-45M range. IMO there will be a lot of players and agents who don't want to start at square fricking one again with these negotiations.
My prediction is that the players will come back with an offer in the next week or so, geared towards next season, likely in the 44-45M range. IMO there will be a lot of players and agents who don't want to start at square fricking one again with these negotiations.
Egil
Registered User
The problem is that with the season cancelled, I don't see the owners taking a deal that does not have linkage. The NHL will have a completely unpredictable revenue stream next season, and as such, they will need linkage, or a VERY low cap (hello $31 million again) to make it work. The players have screwed the pooch on the mid 40s cap with no linkage, unless they give er a go tomorow.
- Feb 15, 2005
- 5,077
- 3,739
Egil said:
Agree. Owners new yarn will be that 42-45 was before we did untold damage to the sport (and our hallowed and all-important franchise values) by nuking the season. Number has to be much lower because we are in dangerous and uncharted economic waters.
So not only do you players have to pay for our mistakes of the last 10 years, you have to pay for the new damage caused by our decision to nuke this season rather than throw you the face-saving bone to 45 that would have got a deal done.
The fact that that doesn't seem fair doesn't matter one bit.
i am dave
Registered User
I think Gary said it best when he said that if Bob wanted 45, he should have offered 45, not 49.
NHLFanSince2020
What'd He Say?
While it is too late to make any deals like that for this season and the percentage that you propose is much higher than I think the NHL should accept, that formula doesn't sound too bad.richardn said:
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
I dont know who posted it yesterday. But 45 million cap, and the luxury tax works off a specific linkage number. 53% of revenue starts is the tax number. Rates very from 50 cents on the dollar up to 1.50 on the dollars. Depending on range. The problem is the owners wouldn't know how much tax they would pay until all the numbers are counted. It would make them spend wiser than even before.
richardn
Registered User
getnziggywidit said:
The percentage was just a number I threw out there that would be the negotiating factor. Keep in mind that 65% is not 65% of all revenue as it is only based on ticket sales so may be similar to low 50's of total revenue in my opinion.
The NHL next offer !
try cap of 32mill
+Linkage
+ two way arbitration
+ NO garenteed contracts ( like NFL )
+ 55% of revenue max
+ draft pick peniltys for noncompliance
+ no Lux taxes ( not nessassary)
+ each player must do 300 hours of community service
+ players must ware a GPS collar to make sure they dont go to any bars the night before a game.
+ Players must return to training camp within 5% of their playing weight.
+ Players will fined $50,000.00 US per incident for each offence of "conduct unbecomming"
+ Players will not be allowed to drive a car more the the speed limit. ( see fine)
+ Players shall not be allowed to drive with any other NHL player in the car ( see Heatly)
+ Players, while on the disabled list shall not partake of any activity not spacificly designed to improve his condition
+ Players must adhear to any new ruling the NHL deems nessassary "for the good of the game"
try cap of 32mill
+Linkage
+ two way arbitration
+ NO garenteed contracts ( like NFL )
+ 55% of revenue max
+ draft pick peniltys for noncompliance
+ no Lux taxes ( not nessassary)
+ each player must do 300 hours of community service
+ players must ware a GPS collar to make sure they dont go to any bars the night before a game.
+ Players must return to training camp within 5% of their playing weight.
+ Players will fined $50,000.00 US per incident for each offence of "conduct unbecomming"
+ Players will not be allowed to drive a car more the the speed limit. ( see fine)
+ Players shall not be allowed to drive with any other NHL player in the car ( see Heatly)
+ Players, while on the disabled list shall not partake of any activity not spacificly designed to improve his condition
+ Players must adhear to any new ruling the NHL deems nessassary "for the good of the game"
- Feb 15, 2005
- 5,077
- 3,739
marcel snapshot said:
My point was, this is a business negotiation, and the side with the advantage will extract as much as they can, and the players need to realize it doesn't matter that it's not fair.
Having said that, I read this quote from Bobby Clarke -- and apparently fairness has a lot to do with it for the players:
"Where they are is back to where they started: Principle. And that’s what has Clarke frightened. Others -- others in his position, in fact -- may not have believed that hockey players could reject up to a collective $1.28 billion in salary and benefits. But Clarke was not surprised that the players allowed the season to die rather than to allow that to happen to their ideals.
"No -- not in any stretch of the imagination was I surprised," Clarke said. "I was raised in a small town. And so many of the Canadian players come from small towns. And losing money isn’t going to make them accept a deal. For them, they are going to have to feel that it is a fair deal. They will lose their salaries. They will fight you. They will give up their salaries and they will settle when they feel it is a fair deal for them. That’s the way those people are brought up. I don’t know if it is principle or what. But I know they are not going to change the people that they are over money.
"They will lose their salaries and they will fight you -- if it is a fair fight, and if they have something to fight for."
I guess it all depends when they make the next offer.If immediately seek approvalRLC said:
for replacement players and get it then I think their next offer will come in
around $25M.
nomorekids
The original, baby
Scoogs
Registered User
This pisses me off so much... The majority of the players are saying that if it was 45-46 mill then we would be talking about training camps and such.
Why, why, why the **** didn't you offer it then? You don't make offers trying to call the owners bluff hours away from the point of no return. Yet, you still try and play this as a ****ing game and offer 49mil.
Incredibly stupid on the players side, and Goodenow is first in line to get the blame.
I am so happy that they are going to be absolutely begging for what the owners offered, come September.
Why, why, why the **** didn't you offer it then? You don't make offers trying to call the owners bluff hours away from the point of no return. Yet, you still try and play this as a ****ing game and offer 49mil.
Incredibly stupid on the players side, and Goodenow is first in line to get the blame.
I am so happy that they are going to be absolutely begging for what the owners offered, come September.
- Status
