The NHL's labour talks will resume this week

Status
Not open for further replies.

Leafer4Life

Go Leafs Go!
Oct 4, 2002
6,188
0
Owen Sound,Ontario
www.facebook.com
Go Flames Go said:
What I heard from the radio is this.

There has been talks going on and the NHLPA is informed of what is coming. THe NHL is scrambling to try to sell this proposal since it dosent have that 38 million hard cap. Trevor Linden was hard at work over the weekend trying to get things done also.

What he said is that there is going to be a minimum of $33 Million and a soft cap at $40 Million and anything above to the amount of $50 Million will be taxed 100% draft picks and other things. The $50 Million will serve has the hard cap. The major issure is salary arbitartion also.

This is a excellent deal for the players, and Mahr said Linden might have been trying get this deal through the union if indeed he was informed of it.
\

Interesting! Thanks for the info! :)
 

PeterSidorkiewicz

HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Apr 30, 2004
32,442
9,701
Lansing, MI
Go Flames Go said:
What I heard from the radio is this.

There has been talks going on and the NHLPA is informed of what is coming. THe NHL is scrambling to try to sell this proposal since it dosent have that 38 million hard cap. Trevor Linden was hard at work over the weekend trying to get things done also.

What he said is that there is going to be a minimum of $33 Million and a soft cap at $40 Million and anything above to the amount of $50 Million will be taxed 100% draft picks and other things. The $50 Million will serve has the hard cap. The major issure is salary arbitartion also.

This is a excellent deal for the players, and Mahr said Linden might have been trying get this deal through the union if indeed he was informed of it.


Just wondering, which Radio station?
 

Hemsky4PM

Registered User
Jun 25, 2003
7,316
0
Billeting Ales
Visit site
If it is a genuine attempt by the league to entice the players to accept a cap there will have to be some big modifications to the NHLs earlier proposal. They can keep the same hard-cap (range) stance, but make some concessions on other things.

Instead of the staggered roll-backs, they could offer a 12-15% across the board roll-back, about half of what the PA initially offered.

Reduce Group 3 free-agency to 28 years old, instead of the 30 years old offered in December.

Instead of having qualifying offers at a rate less than 100% make them 100% across the board. Also include a reverse arbitration system that gives managers limited ability to request a reduced qualifying rate for a player. By limited I mean that a team can do this once per season and any given player can only have it applied to them once in their career.

Create baseball style arbitration system whereby the player or management figure is awarded, not a median rate. Teams will be forced to make tough decisions is certain awards put them over the cap. This may mean moving players under duress, not getting fair market value, in order to keep stars. Or it may mean walking away from a big award thus making a player a free agent.

Make the entry-level maximum 850000, the figure proposed by the players. Remove the demand for an extra year and allow for 500-700K in bonuses under a strict performance system.

Outline meaningful revenue sharing.

The NHL will try make a legitimate attempt to save the season. The proposal they give this week will be noticibly better than the counter-proposal from December and, particularly in the case of players in their mid-20s, will give the NHLPA reason to contemplate a cap. I certainly won't be shocked if its regected outright, but the players will have to weigh this offer (and it's negotiable aspects) against missing another season and a half.
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,725
12,217
They won't be offering a formal proposal but new concepts at the meeting. If this meeting goes south, then there will definitely be no season. The owners better offer some form of salary arbitration and revenue sharing plan. If the owners are even going to get the players to think about a cap, they need to offer these items in the talks.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112558
 

gobuds

Registered User
Mar 2, 2004
97
0
torontosportsmedia.com
all the sides are doing is posturing, nothing more, and nothing less.

Each side has taken a stance it can't move from-

First rule of any negotiation, is don't take a position that you can't move off of- check out the book Getting to Yes- common read in most law schools these days.

Nhl position has been, in essence, can't live without cost certainty= cap
PA position has been, in essence, can't live with one

Problem is how do you save face in a negotiation when you can indeed move off your point. The PA would accept a cap of 100 million, and the league would live with a luxury tax of 250%. So the problem is, once you take the position these guys have taken, how do you move off of it.

Truth is, the players are going to lose this time. I am not saying the owners are right, but the truth is billionaire owners will last longer without revenue then millionaire players. It is that simple. So the pa has to try to get the best possible deal it can. Every day that ticks, the deal they can get gets worse. Big market teams are on board because, if a team like Toronto makes 80 million with player costs of over 60, imagine what they would make if they couldn't spend over 35! Read carefully- they will not lower ticket prices- they don't have to- ticket costs are based on 1 factor, and only 1 factor, what the market will bear, and as long as people will pay top dollar in big markets, prices will stay high. So a team valued at x without a cap, probably doubles in value with one- and that is all the owners care about.

Biggest problem today- and the most telling, you have negotaions going on, at least publically without the 2 leaders. If am a player, I would love to know why BG is getting $$$ when he can't lead us publically. If Iam an owner I want to know why GB is the commish when he can't lead us publically either.

As for Eklund's rumor on a new proposal. It doesn't add up as presented:

1 franchise player: ok I can see that - say he makes $10m - total payroll so far 10m
2 players 2- 6 each at no more then 4 each= 20m - total payroll 30m
3 rest of the players what you want- so long as they don't individual exceed any of the first 6 players i.e. 3.99 each. Therefore, 14 players at 3.99 = 55m total payroll 85m- what have we accomplished??? this is not a better offer then any luxury tax the players have offered.

we shall see- personally, I am waiting for Eklund's comment- I know where the secret meeting is being held, but out of respect i am not saying where....tomorrow!
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
Madevilz said:
um I guess no new proposals will be made until the two monkeys show up at those meetings.

No need to call Saskins and Goodenow names. Peseants would suit them much better.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Madevilz said:
um I guess no new proposals will be made until the two monkeys show up at those meetings.


The dont need proposals to get a deal done. Like i said in another thread of they can agree on a system it will be done. Than they draft the CBA and were back to hockey.
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
gobuds said:
As for Eklund's rumor on a new proposal. It doesn't add up as presented:

1 franchise player: ok I can see that - say he makes $10m - total payroll so far 10m
2 players 2- 6 each at no more then 4 each= 20m - total payroll 30m
3 rest of the players what you want- so long as they don't individual exceed any of the first 6 players i.e. 3.99 each. Therefore, 14 players at 3.99 = 55m total payroll 85m- what have we accomplished??? this is not a better offer then any luxury tax the players have offered.

First you are short two players in your figures. NHL teams have 23 players not 21 so the figure should actually be $93M, BUT lets be serious. Find me a team that pays players #2-6 the exact same amount ($4M) and then plays the remaining 16 players $3.99M. Nobody does that now and nobody will do that.

You have your franchise player who say makes $10M.

Player #2 makes $7M
Player #3 $5.5M
Player #4 $3M
Player #5 $2.5M
Player #6 $2M

Total 30M

Even if you paid the remaining 16 players $1.99M your payroll would be $62M, BUT no team is going to player these 16 players $1.99M. These are your third and fourth line players, your back-up goalie, your reserve players. They are making $500,000 - $1.5M. More at the $500,000 end then the $1.5M. Your payroll would end up being closer to $45M, and thats on a rich team. On a lower end team payroll would be closer to $35 because your not paying your franchise player $10M and your next five players are not making $7M, $5,5M etc. They are making $3-4M at the top and $1-2M at the bottom.

This is the real world, not your scenario. Like I said if you can find me a team who has paid player #2-6 the EXACT same amount and then players 7-23 the exact amount, you win the prize.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
c-carp said:
Agreed, no middle ground can be found if neither side wants to look. I dont have a clue what that would be but common sence tells a person that middle ground has to be there.

The concept of middle ground relies entirely on desire, not need. IE, there's the two extremes in the proposals, both of them will work for both sides, but each side desires one proposal more than the other. Since both sides only desire one proposal, ultimately it's easy to find a middle ground.

Need is entirely different. If you absolutely must have a proposal for survival, then you can't move off of it. There is no middle ground. This is what we have now, both sides insisting this issue is a need, not a desire.

Of course, whether that need is true or not for either side is up for debate.

I also wonder if these two sides are really tugging on one rope, like in a tug-of-war. I often feel like each side is tugging on a separate rope.

This is a very interesting time right now. With each passing day, the players have *less* reason to settle, as they've already lost most of their salary, since they don't get paid for the playoffs. The opposite is true of the owners, they haven't lost that much yet, but with each passing day, they risk losing the playoffs, where all the money is.

There's going to be a lot of players saying "What? I come back now, just so the owners rake in the bucks during the playoffs?"
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
PecaFan said:
This is a very interesting time right now. With each passing day, the players have *less* reason to settle, as they've already lost most of their salary, since they don't get paid for the playoffs. The opposite is true of the owners, they haven't lost that much yet, but with each passing day, they risk losing the playoffs, where all the money is.

There's going to be a lot of players saying "What? I come back now, just so the owners rake in the bucks during the playoffs?"

On the other hand, if the season is cancelled, there won't be a new CBA before Jan 06 unless the players cave in, so if they don't settle now they also lose half a year next year for sure.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
I hope no one gets there hopes up, there will not be NHL hockey for a very long time, the players are just way too greedy.
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
Go Flames Go said:
I hope no one gets there hopes up, there will not be NHL hockey for a very long time, the players are just way too greedy.

The players are doing what everyone does in bargaining processes, why is that so hard for you to understand? The owners are after money too, should we call them all greedy too?
 

Kluivert4Ever

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
1,775
0
Visit site
GregStack said:
The players are doing what everyone does in bargaining processes, why is that so hard for you to understand? The owners are after money too, should we call them all greedy too?


It takes two to tango yes.
 

Go Flames Go*

Guest
The owners are trying to make a profit and a more controlled work force which most sports and business have except for the NHL. The owners have every right to force upon there will on the money hungry players, there needs to be a cap.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,643
37,439
Go Flames Go said:
The owners are trying to make a profit and a more controlled work force which most sports and business have except for the NHL. The owners have every right to force upon there will on the money hungry players, there needs to be a cap.


There doesn't need to be a cap, if that's what it was about the owners can do that by themselves. By saying there needs to be a cap, I guess you're saying that you support the side that is incompitent that they can't control their own spending?
 

amazingcrwns

drop the puck
Feb 13, 2003
1,782
1
Western MA
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
There doesn't need to be a cap, if that's what it was about the owners can do that by themselves. By saying there needs to be a cap, I guess you're saying that you support the side that is incompitent that they can't control their own spending?

By supporting a cap I'm supporting competitive balance, I don't want the NHL to end up like Baseball with a team like the Yankees who can buy all the talent. I don't want all the star players to end up in high markets just because that is the only place that will pay them top dollar. The smaller markets should be able to ice a competitve team and shouldn't be forced to lose all their players as soon as they become free agents. Just because the Rangers can afford to spend $11 on Jagr doesn't mean that other teams can spend that much. Every team should be able to at least put in a competitive bid on these top atheletes, it will spread the talent out across the league, bringing star players to new markets, raising attendence and have a positive effect on the game. It isn't fair to the small markets to have to spend more than they can afford to bid at the same level as the higher markets.
 

Sam I Am

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
1,909
186
Visit site
amazingcrwns said:
By supporting a cap I'm supporting competitive balance, I don't want the NHL to end up like Baseball with a team like the Yankees who can buy all the talent. I don't want all the star players to end up in high markets just because that is the only place that will pay them top dollar. The smaller markets should be able to ice a competitve team and shouldn't be forced to lose all their players as soon as they become free agents. Just because the Rangers can afford to spend $11 on Jagr doesn't mean that other teams can spend that much. Every team should be able to at least put in a competitive bid on these top atheletes, it will spread the talent out across the league, bringing star players to new markets, raising attendence and have a positive effect on the game. It isn't fair to the small markets to have to spend more than they can afford to bid at the same level as the higher markets.
]

Exactly.

It's ridiculous to take either management's or the players' side in this fight. I support my own interests which, briefly put, is a return to a league where each team has at least the possibility of competing on an even footing.

If hockey continues to go down the road of MLB, the day will come when I , and many other long-standing fans, will simply wash our hands of it.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
go kim johnsson said:
There doesn't need to be a cap, if that's what it was about the owners can do that by themselves. By saying there needs to be a cap, I guess you're saying that you support the side that is incompitent that they can't control their own spending?

owners would get pinched for collusion if that was the case, no? :dunno:
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Go Flames Go said:
The owners have every right to force upon there will on the money hungry players

If that were true, then what's with this lockout and CBA negotiations? :dunno:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->