To the "Pro-PA" crowd...

[Boltsfan2029]

larry brooks -

 

[Tawnos]

Look, the rollback definitely isn't enough. And the idea of it isn't just short term. The rollback resets the market to where it should be. Now you just gotta insure that salaries don't balloon again.

Honestly, the concepts put forth in the $49mil (soft) cap are the fairest so far. Maybe the number should be lower now, but I think $49mil was a fair offer at the time.

Here's my idea which is obviously based on what's already been put on the table.

$24mil: Salary floor
$29mil-34mil: $0.25/$1.00 tax (money redistributed equally to $24-29mil teams)
$34mil-39mil: $0.50/$1.00 tax (money redistributed equally to $24-34mil teams)
$39mil-44mil: $1.00/$1.00 tax (money redistributed equally to $24-39mil teams)
$44mil: Soft cap
$44mil-$49mil: $2.00/$1.00 tax (money redistributed equally to $24-44mil teams)

All redistributed money has to go back into hockey operations.

Qualifying offers must be 85% of original contract. Let's get rid of that inflator.

Arbitration can be initiated every other season per player by either side. This prevents one bad season from ruining a players' salary or one good season for exploding his salary, but allows for a greater merit based system of salary scale.

Let's reduce the penalty for signing RFAs. 5 draft picks for a topnotch guy is just simply not worth it. Have mecahnisms to prevent front-loading offer sheets a la Sakic. Because it's a greater chance of changing teams for the players, that benefits them.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Another concept I've played around with in my mind as a benefit to the players actual salary is to not count re-signing money towards the Cap.

Let's say player A signs his rookie contract for the rookie cap, lets say $900k. When he becomes an RFA, any money his team offers up to $900k doesn't count against the cap. If he signs for $1.5million, $600k goes against the Cap. Say this contract expires at age 25. Player A is still an RFA. He re-signs for $2million. $1.5million doesnt count against the cap and $500k does. etc etc. This goes for UFAs too. If you sign your own, it doesn't count against the Cap. The reason I toss this idea out is that I think it's got too much inflation.

 

[garry1221]

Another concept I've played around with in my mind as a benefit to the players actual salary is to not count re-signing money towards the Cap.

Let's say player A signs his rookie contract for the rookie cap, lets say $900k. When he becomes an RFA, any money his team offers up to $900k doesn't count against the cap. If he signs for $1.5million, $600k goes against the Cap. Say this contract expires at age 25. Player A is still an RFA. He re-signs for $2million. $1.5million doesnt count against the cap and $500k does. etc etc. This goes for UFAs too. If you sign your own, it doesn't count against the Cap. The reason I toss this idea out is that I think it's got too much inflation.

something like this could be effective with a cap on the amount exempt capped at 5 - 7 mil or somewhere around there. Thsi idea i'd only use with players drafted by teams or players with 5 or 6 years at least with the same team. the amount exempt cap IMO should be less for players brought in than players drafted. just my opinion.

 

[Icey]

This is contradictory -- since the arbitration process is so incredibly lopsided toward the players as it now stands, to make it "fair" would definitely not be in the PA's favor.

Arbitration should be fair -- doesn't matter how it works, as long as it works exactly the same for both sides. If the players can choose arbitration X number of times, the team should be allowed the exact same number of cracks at it on the exact same terms the players get. That's "fair."

The 100% qualifying is still too unfair to the owners, IMO, especially if the PA is going to fight to have arbitration remain lopsided in its favor. I see no reason why an employer should be forced to keep a player at his full existing salary if his performance doesn't justify it. 85% qualifying seems a lot more fair, it could certainly be stipulated that the player has the option to go to arbitration if he feels he's being slighted.

Arbitration as it was proposed in the last offer was not in favor of the PA it was in favor of owners, so why is it contradictory to say they should negotitate this in their favor? I said to make it fair for both the owners and players not lopsided to the players. They each should be able to take a player to arbitration, but just as a player shouldn't be able to go year after year, the owners shouldn't be able to take the same player year after year.

I don't see how a 100% qualifiying offer is unfair to the owners. An owner isn't forced to keep a player at his full existing salary if they are not happy with his performance. The owner can just not qualify the player. Why would you want a player that you are not happy with their performance? How many owners are saying "yeah, lets sign that underachieving Player X". I would be not many.

Its the owners decision, not the players so if the owner decides they want them on their team they have a few choices. (1) Qualify the player at 100% (2) Release the player and let him become a Free Agent (3) Release the player and let him become a free agent, but then offer him a less contract as a free agent. The Stars did this option with a few of their RFA this summer. They didn't qualify them but then 3 days latter they signed with Stars for a lesser amount. And how many oweners do you think will qualify a player at more than your proposed 85%? My guess zero to none. If rookie contracts are capped correctly, qualifying offers should not be a problem.

The owners need to stop complaining about arbitration and qualifying offers and exercise their rights. If they don't like a players performance don't qualify him. If he goes to arbitration and the award is too high, walk away.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Arbitration as it was proposed in the last offer was not in favor of the PA it was in favor of owners, so why is it contradictory to say they should negotitate this in their favor?
I said to make it fair for both the owners and players not lopsided to the players.

Well, you said that you would negotiate everything except the cap (I believe it was the cap) to the advantage of the players. Then you said you would make arbitration "fair." To me, that's contradictory because at the end of the last CBA, and with the PA's last offer, arbitration remained decidedly lopsided in favor of the players, consequently, making it "fair" would not be to their "advantage." All in how you look at it, I suppose.

I don't see how a 100% qualifiying offer is unfair to the owners. An owner isn't forced to keep a player at his full existing salary if they are not happy with his performance. The owner can just not qualify the player. Why would you want a player that you are not happy with their performance? How many owners are saying "yeah, lets sign that underachieving Player X". I would be not many.

As an example, there are many, many people who felt Vincent Lecavalier was, at one point, an "underacheiving player," however, I would also think that most GMs would want to keep him around. I could be wrong, of course, but I just can't see many GMs letting a talented player walk if he has the potential to be turned around.

And how many oweners do you think will qualify a player at more than your proposed 85%? My guess zero to none.

Using Lecavalier as an example, he was at roughly $2M when he was struggling. Do you think many owners would have been happy to snatch him up at 85% of that amount?

 

[Tawnos]

The owners need to stop complaining about arbitration and qualifying offers and exercise their rights. If they don't like a players performance don't qualify him. If he goes to arbitration and the award is too high, walk away.

In defense of the owners goals in this case, neither of those things matter. The player will sign somewhere else for that 100% q-offer or more and they'll sign somewhere else for their arbitration award. This drives the market up. Arbitration and q-offers were the biggest reasons salaries continued to balloon after the Sakic, Fedorov and LaPointe debacles. We have to insure that salaries don't explode again.

The problem with q-offers at 100% or more is that the player will VERY, VERY rarely sign for the exact q-offer amount. So we may have Leclavier qualified at 85% of $2million, but do you really think he's going to actually sign for less than $2mil? Fat chance.

 

[Icey]

So when your annual review comes up next year and your boss tells you instead of you getting a raise, they are going to pay you only 85% of what you earned last year. That will be okay with you?

And throw in that clause that the owners are pushing for stating if a player is not signed within 14 day of the beginning of camp, they are ineligible for the entire season, the NHL has just turned into the mafia.

They qualify Vinny as your example at $2M and play hardball. Vinny's choice is either to play for $2M or hold out. If the owner doesn't budge in 14 days, Vinny loses a season. The Bolts can then sign another player.

ANd if they want to play by these rules, then they need to lower FA age to about 25-26 because as it is right now, they are holding a player hostage for 10-12 years depending on the age they are drafted.

 

[Tawnos]

That's not how it works and you should know it. In this hypothetical situation, my boss isn't offering me something that I can't negotiate upwards.

Players get qualified as a negotiation starter, not as a hardline stance. Had you been watching this very thing for the last few years, you would've seen that most players get a better deal than the q-offer. Hardline stances are rare in these negotiations.

The point about hardballing, though, is exactly why I say we need to lower the penalties for signing RFAs. If Vinny can really get more on the open market, then let's not have GMs being scared of the consequences and make the Bolts match any offer Vinny gets.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Exactly, so when do the players start giving back to the game that has seen them make more money than most people will make in a lifetime?

If this is the sentiment by supposed hockey fans, then I say never. The players have already given back far more than they should have in there first rollback offer in my oppinion, let alone when they said they'd take a 50 million cap.

If you, as a so-called "fan" can't see they are giving back then I suggest you stop posting about, watching, and supporting (if you ever did...) hockey. Maybe when all the fans are willing to pay to watch teams play things will be different.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Seeing as to how there is no way both sides can negotiate a fair deal that will appease both sides, then it's time for something drastic. It's time for binding arbitration. No more of this "no we won't do that" or "they don't know what our issues are" kind of crap. It's time both sides take that route, offer their strongest argument that they have and let an arbitrator decide on what the CBA will now be and with no questions asked. I'm sure the owners fear this because it will expose them for overstating losses and I'm sure players will fear this because it will show that losses are more than what they are letting on to be.

However, as a player, I'm all for binding arbitration because if I'm told that by my union leader that our case is rock solid, then we should have nothing to fear. Same for the owners. The fact that no one is clamoring for this clearly indicates that both sides are not too comfortable with their current position.

 

[Timmy]

So when your annual review comes up next year and your boss tells you instead of you getting a raise, they are going to pay you only 85% of what you earned last year. That will be okay with you?

.

That does happen.

Usually, though, in the real world, if a boss is unhappy with you or can't afford to keep you, he simply fires you.

In hockey, the owner usually had to give up something to obtain the player (used a draft pick, traded for him, etc). So by letting him walk, you're getting nothing in return for something you had to sacrifice to get.

And the 85% QO is appropriate, because performance may change. This is a results-orientated business. If you're a broker whose commissions were down 20% over last fiscal, don't wade into your manager's office demanding the same bonus you got last year.

My proposal would be a 40m cap to increase by 2m per year after the first full season has been played, and increasing by 3m after three years. Therefore,

05/06 40m
06/07 42m
07/08 44m
08/09 47m
09/10 50m

So let the cap go up thereby creating a controlled inflation and allowing owners to sign deals with players in aniticipation of a larger cap in the following years,while removing the need to examine and interpret the books every year. It also provides an incentive for individual owners to continue to increase revenues in their own markets, nationally, and internationally in the face of known but sustainable increases in operating costs year over year.

Lower the UFA age by a year, have the QO at 85% and keep all contracts guaranteed.

The floor would be 30m and move up in lockstep with the ceiling.

Have enough revenue sharing to allow each team to meet the floor, but no more.

 

[Sammy*]

If this is the sentiment by supposed hockey fans, then I say never. The players have already given back far more than they should have in there first rollback offer in my oppinion, let alone when they said they'd take a 50 million cap.

If you, as a so-called "fan" can't see they are giving back then I suggest you stop posting about, watching, and supporting (if you ever did...) hockey. Maybe when all the fans are willing to pay to watch teams play things will be different.

This is laughable. Do you think the players "give back" really matters when the "give back's" net effect at the end of the day is that the owners still lose money, only less than before? Do you thing the owners should have to wait for a reasonable system to be put in place until the next CBA so that the "give back" isnt so shocking to the poor old players?
You NHLPA apologist's talk about a "give back" like the owners should be giving back as well, notwithstanding they have been "giving back" to the tune of billions of dollars over the las decade.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I have to say, kudos to the Pro-PA crowd for having a coherant argument. It at least cleared up for me exactly what stance they have.

Outside of "mr gib" I have to say there's at least some sound reasoning here (something that seemed to be lacking in other threads).

I think the cap "has" to be linkage, for the good of both parties. The league needs it for financial balance, and the PA needs it so their players do actually get pay increases (something which a hard cap with no linkage wouldn't give). I have to say I'm primarly "pro-owner" but I'm not of the belief of making rich people richer. I personally favour the "lesser of two evils" ie. taking the owners side because they are the ones making money. Since it is a bunch of millionairs bickering about money, past the survival of 30-NHL teams (including my team, the Flames, who are in dire financial contraints) I wouldn't care less who "makes more money."

I'd have to say Tawnos has the strongest proposal here. Its already given that there HAS to be a hard cap. Fine. A free market would be nice in theory, but one of the downfalls of a free market is disparity (ie. the rich get richer, the poor get poorer). While some markets (ie. Toronto) may have the assets to put on a better product, it would be nice to have them ice the best product they can with the revenue they have. Of coarse, the downfall of that result is that it sets the market value higher and higher for players of every level, and smaller markets are the ones feeling the push.

So thus... my new and improved idea. Besides having a "partnership" that includes not only linkage (between revenue and salaries) but a "partnership" in marketing and making the game better, I propose the following:

Have a linked cap between 48% - 64% of revenue, and a heavy tax on salaries over 53% that grows expennentially each year. While the league gets linkage, the PA gets a free market. However, since small markets will feel the push with higher percentages, a luxury tax will be put in place such that big markets are the ones that compensate for setting the bar higher. In that case, small markets arn't forced to feel the pinch because of teams like Toronto, Dallas, New York and Philly since their big-spender counterparts are the ones paying the bill.

In other words, the luxury tax will grow as salaries go up. Small market teams wouldn't be expected to up their payroll, but if it happens because larger markets want to spend more, then larger markets split the bill. A team like Nashville might have their team salary go up from 34$ mill to 38$ mill, but they only pay the 34$ mill while the teams above 53% pay the tab.

For those not exactly understanding this system, think of it as a different sort of luxery tax. One which doesn't depend so much on a fixed number $X amount because they are over the cap, but a generalized way of revenue sharing AND luxery tax so big markets are allowed to spend without having an effect on smaller markets.

 

[shveik]

Yes, I'm sure everyone knows well about that 24%. (I mean, how can we not?)

Besides the fact that it doesn't solve anything long term, exactly how much effect will the 24% have? How many players are under contract? Because those are the only ones that will take the 24% hit. With all the UFA's right now, that 24% is meaningless.

The purpose of the 24% rollback is to provide the fresh start to the salary market. As was mentioned, the GMs are diving into the red ink because the market sets a certain salary levels, and the adjustment to the new economic conditions is slow. The rollback affects the slowest component of the market adjustment - the long term contracts. The new contracts are then negotiated in the new 24% reduced salary market. If the teams are indeed in the red as they claim, the market will stay there, or slowly creep even lower if the 24% is not enough. If they are fudging the numbers, the salaries will creep up again from there.

I can understand how the increased demand due to the expansion, and the Bettman instilled expectation of the NHL to become a major sport in US has destabilized the market. But there is no excuse if the GMs cannot right the ship using the 24% rollback as a start.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The purpose of the 24% rollback is to provide the fresh start to the salary market. As was mentioned, the GMs are diving into the red ink because the market sets a certain salary levels, and the adjustment to the new economic conditions is slow. The rollback affects the slowest component of the market adjustment - the long term contracts. The new contracts are then negotiated in the new 24% reduced salary market. If the teams are indeed in the red as they claim, the market will stay there, or slowly creep even lower if the 24% is not enough. If they are fudging the numbers, the salaries will creep up again from there.

I can understand how the increased demand due to the expansion, and the Bettman instilled expectation of the NHL to become a major sport in US has destabilized the market. But there is no excuse if the GMs cannot right the ship using the 24% rollback as a start.

Really?

Lets take Jarome Iginla as an example. He's currently a FA and made 7.5$ last playing season. Now, hypothetically, if he were to make 8$ million the next season, under a 24% rollback, that would set him at $6 million. Do you think Iginla would be willing to sign for 6$ million? Or do you think he'd hold out for me?

Markets won't be set on low figures - they are typically set on high figures. You think Don Meehan or other player agents would look to Martin St Louis and ask for that $ amount? Or would they look at Peter Forsberg and start asking for those $?

I just don't see the rollback having an effect on the market value. To me, it would just decrease salaries - nothings stopping players from holding out for more, and thus rendering the rollback almost useless.

 

[shveik]

Hm, i dont know... if you look at the title of the thread, it says "to the pro-pa crowd"

Usually if you put cognitive thought together you can spawn debate, that's my debate there.

In your post you haven't given anything other than how you feel, with some generalizations. There is nothing to discuss there. You could have just as well told us that you have a headache or something. There could only be two types of responses to something like that: 1) well, tough 2) yeah, I feel you man. That's not a debate, that's blather.

 

[Charge_Seven]

This is laughable. Do you think the players "give back" really matters when the "give back's" net effect at the end of the day is that the owners still lose money, only less than before? Do you thing the owners should have to wait for a reasonable system to be put in place until the next CBA so that the "give back" isnt so shocking to the poor old players?
You NHLPA apologist's talk about a "give back" like the owners should be giving back as well, notwithstanding they have been "giving back" to the tune of billions of dollars over the las decade.

The "give back" as you put it does not solely make them lose "less" money. It makes it so they have a shot at undoing their previous errors. The rollback could have worked if the owners simply said "no, you aren't worth this much money, try to get it from another team" whenthe contract was too rich for their blood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

The "give back" as you put it does not solely make them lose "less" money. It makes it so they have a shot at undoing their previous errors. The rollback could have worked if the owners simply said "no, you aren't worth this much money, try to get it from another team" whenthe contract was too rich for their blood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.

Without restrictions there will always be greedy owners willing to overspend and force the others and if they didn't the PA would claim collusion.

Anyone with a brain can tell that rollback was crap and it would have worked for 1.5 seasons and the league would have been right back to losing millions.

I'm starting to think some of Goodenow coolaid was givin out last season in the big markets.Its allways big-market fans that are blind of the real issues and problems.

 

[Icey]

Without restrictions there will always be greedy owners willing to overspend and force the others and if they didn't the PA would claim collusion.

Anyone with a brain can tell that rollback was crap and it would have worked for 1.5 seasons and the league would have been right back to losing millions.

I'm starting to think some of Goodenow coolaid was givin out last season in the big markets.Its allways big-market fans that are blind of the real issues and problems.

So its the owners who are greedy and not the players?

I'll ask the same question again. If the rollback was crap and wouldn't work why is it still part of the NHL's proposal? Guess its not such crap as everyone wants to make it out to be.

 

[Icey]

That does happen.

Usually, though, in the real world, if a boss is unhappy with you or can't afford to keep you, he simply fires you.

In hockey, the owner usually had to give up something to obtain the player (used a draft pick, traded for him, etc). So by letting him walk, you're getting nothing in return for something you had to sacrifice to get.

And the 85% QO is appropriate, because performance may change. This is a results-orientated business. If you're a broker whose commissions were down 20% over last fiscal, don't wade into your manager's office demanding the same bonus you got last year.

The owner gave up nothing if he drafted the player. And with your logic you are rewarding a team for bad management and bad developement. Take that away and maybe GM's and owners would think a little longer and harder before making trades.

And you might not get the same bonus with a 20% decrease, but chances are your getting the same salary.

But what about when the performance doesn't decrease and actually increases. How many teams do you think are going to offer more than 85%, probably none. There are a whole load of cheapskate owners who will just lowball them and there is nothing to prevent them from doing this. Watch the number of players going to arbitration and holding out go up.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I'll ask the same question again. If the rollback was crap and wouldn't work why is it still part of the NHL's proposal? Guess its not such crap as everyone wants to make it out to be.

Because its needed to get salaries to below the cap.

If there was no rollback, and you take a team like Toronto (who has most of their players under contract) that the "hard cap" at 42.5$ million or whatever would mean that TO would have to either buy out half of their players and/or put them on waivers hoping to clear way to under the cap.

The rollback is merely a short term fix, while a cap is the mechanism to control salaries.

 

[Sammy*]

The "give back" as you put it does not solely make them lose "less" money. It makes it so they have a shot at undoing their previous errors. The rollback could have worked if the owners simply said "no, you aren't worth this much money, try to get it from another team" whenthe contract was too rich for their blood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.

Tell me, a 24% rollback that will effect about 30% of the players (amounting to a 7% overall change) in the next year & about 10% or so in the year thereafter(amounting to about a 3% overall change) will have an effect? :lol :lol
Yep, ok there Bud.
Hey then, enlighten me, when the BOG asked the NHLPA to guarantee that (ie. that a 24% reduction in salaries would remain to that proportion of revenues), what was your buddy Bobs response.That simply showed that the NHLPA never had any interest of making a reasonable deal, they simply want the raping & pillaging to go on for as long as possible.
I'm sorry you can't see the transparency in it, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

So its the owners who are greedy and not the players?

I'll ask the same question again. If the rollback was crap and wouldn't work why is it still part of the NHL's proposal? Guess its not such crap as everyone wants to make it out to be.

Of course some owners are greedy,it's human nature to want to win. Problem is,the NHL is a gate driven league and simpley will fall apart if all teams don't play under the same rules.
As much as big market team fans would love to just scrap a bunch of teams...it won't happen, so get on board hoping to fix the 30 team league.

And the rollback is crap,as explained above.

 

[Tawnos]

OK, you gotta understand something. The rollback may not be long term, but it's still an extremely significant concession or was when we didn't have so many players without contracts. The 24% is hardly meaningless or crap.

Splatman, I thank you for the compliment on my proposal. Despite our disagreements, you'd be surprise to hear that I'm not a hard-liner and while I'm completely against a salary cap conceptually, I think there will never be an NHLPA-filled season without one and thus I become for it in that sense.

On your comment about Iginla... Iginla doesn't holdout for more if, say, Peter Forsberg or Martin St. Louis only get $6mil offers that offseason. Players only really holdout when they think they'd get more on the open market if they were allowed to be on the open market. If Iginla sees guys of similar stature getting a certain salary, that's what he's gonna ask for because that's where his value falls. Therefore, it behooves the owners not to make enormous offers to players because it will end up biting them in the ass in the long run. (nice use of intelligent language [behooves] and vulgarity in the same sentence right there)

That said, did anyone read the Hockey News article about revenue sharing? Apparantly the last NHL offer included revenue sharing at 12%. Major major disappointment right there. The biggest reason why the NFLs system is so healthy is because they have an enormous amount of revenue sharing (63%). The NHL likes to point to the NBA and the NFL so much, they should try really emulating. The NBA has 35% sharing, which is still triple what the NHL proposes.

 

[shveik]

Really?

Lets take Jarome Iginla as an example. He's currently a FA and made 7.5$ last playing season. Now, hypothetically, if he were to make 8$ million the next season, under a 24% rollback, that would set him at $6 million. Do you think Iginla would be willing to sign for 6$ million? Or do you think he'd hold out for me?

Markets won't be set on low figures - they are typically set on high figures. You think Don Meehan or other player agents would look to Martin St Louis and ask for that $ amount? Or would they look at Peter Forsberg and start asking for those $?

I just don't see the rollback having an effect on the market value. To me, it would just decrease salaries - nothings stopping players from holding out for more, and thus rendering the rollback almost useless.

What would stop Iginla from asking for 8mil+ with the cap in place? That's the GMs and agents job to negotiate the salary that is acceptable to both parties. If they fail to reach an agreement within Calgary's budget, Iginla is traded, or some other guys get traded to make room for Iginla's salary. It's the same thing as with the cap, it is called the budget, and the only thing is, it is different for different teams. Now you are going to say: but what about the market disparities? That's a real issue, but a salary cap is not the only solution to that. It is the only solution that puts the brunt of the market disparities on the players, and it puts the player-owner trust as the necessary condition to making a workable deal. Why not simply introduce revenue sharing and achieve the same goal without having to deal with it in the CBA and make the players pay for it?