To the "Pro-PA" crowd...

[Icey]

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.

Then again if the rollback is crap why has it been included in every single NHL proposal since December 9th. If the NHL didn't feel it did anything, they wouldn't include it. Could it be that the rollback will actually help fix the system and isn't the PR move that everyone here wants us to believe.

I am from a big market team, but have never once suggested we scrap teams. I want 30 team today and I want 30 teams in 5 years. I also think the players should have taken the last NHL proposal and negotiate off that. Negotiate the other points of the proposal and get back to playing hockey and fix this game and the broken league.

 

[futurcorerock]

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.

Debate is derived from such a statement. I'd be challenged to cite my beliefs with facts then consider others' rebuttles for or against said statement.

is this really worth arguing over?

 

[Icey]

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.

A dispersal draft would solve that problem.

 

[Hunter74]

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.

Those teams should be forced to buy out there players. The players negotiated well for there contracts and they deserve them and other teams do not deserve to pay a haevey price b/c some GM's/Owners were foolish and kept there payroll high knowing full well there was a lockout coming.

 

[Hunter74]

Just a few question.

What happens under the "linkage" system if a team fails to keep up with the growth of the NHL?

If this team maxed out all its revenue avenues and maxed out its growth potential but still could not afford to pay the Floor percentage for player salaries. What would be in the NHLPA's best interest in this situation?? I guess the NHL's as well.

I would think that the NHL and NHLPA would want this team moved to a market that could keep up with the growth of the NHL and be able to pay the minimum player salaries and in turn increase the over value of NHL franchises.

Now how would revenue sharing affect this situation?

Under a revenue sharing system would this situation even come up or would it be hidden and be an unseen anchor on the League and player salaries? The League wants to grow and the players want to be paid more, dont see either side wanting dead weight slowing things down.

Would it benefit the players or the NHL in the long run?

If a market isn't capable of keeping up with the "average" of the NHL should it be propped up by the upper teams or moved to a better market that can afford to sustain a NHL team or should the team just be folded up?

Eventually the NHL's growth is gonna top out for the most part but can all 30 teams keep up and pay out the average?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

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?

Not to mention that as an FA, the 24% rollback wouldn't even apply to him, anyway.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

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.

The threat of arbitration is exactly why they won't use the 85% qualifying offers on players who don't deserve to have their salaries cut.

While we're at it, arbitration also needs to be "either or" -- the salary awarded is either the one offered by the team or the one demanded by the player. That will greatly discourage frivolous requests for arbitration.

 

[Phanuthier*]

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?

RE: Example of Iginla signing.

Well, what the cap would do is give Iginla's party less bargaining power since there's less teams that can afford to give him an outragous salary.

RE: Revenue sharing.

As in the one I proposed?

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Then again if the rollback is crap why has it been included in every single NHL proposal since December 9th. If the NHL didn't feel it did anything, they wouldn't include it. Could it be that the rollback will actually help fix the system and isn't the PR move that everyone here wants us to believe.

You don't actually think a rollback wasn't discussed before dec-9 do you? most likely it was the leagues idea to get back to near black in the first place!
I'm a nobody but a player told me 2 years ago the league is going to want a "rollback" of sorts ...i highly dought that idea started from Goodenow
Anyway,keeping it there seems to be the PA's issue.They could care less,but if the league tried to do something on their own to "cap" themselfs you can be guarenteed there would be a collusion lawsuit the next day.

I stand by my thought that the rollback was and still is crap without a cap or system in place to protect the owners from themselfs.

Take it a little farther,would you rather have a MLB system with the same friggin teams winning everyyear because of money (and mostly with different players) or an NFL system that has teams winning because of "building" their teams and keeping their players (they developed) long-term.
Personly i would have a problem after watching my team miss the playoffs for 7 years and to scratch and claw to keep and sign talent have to lose what could be an icon in the community in Iginla because of money.(wouldn't you?) these guys for the most part love where there playing but sometimes leave not just because of extra money but because of pressures from the union and agents not to take less...that is plain wrong IMO.

And a cap will prevent such crap!!

 

[Johnnybegood13]

While we're at it, arbitration also needs to be "either or" -- the salary awarded is either the one offered by the team or the one demanded by the player. That will greatly discourage frivolous requests for arbitration.

Totally agree!
i've allways hated the fact some idiot lawyer looks at the simple stats and decides the salarie's. the either/or system would stop the hi/lo balling from both sides.

 

[me2]

goodenow was right though - all the number's you spout are moot because the league had no intention of playing the season - everytime it appeared something was close bettman started ramming another unacceptable item up the pa's hoop -

What a load of BS. The closest they came was when they met to uncancel the season. . The Gretzky-Mario meeting had a deal basically worked through, but Goodenow disowned the backroom deal completely. It was the NHL who thought they had a deal and the NHLPAers deliberately killing it.

So when exactly was it close?

 

[me2]

The 100% qualifying is still too unfair to the owners, IMO

100% qualifiers are OK, only if the team has the option of going arbitration. Ie they either make a 100% qualifying offer or they nominate for arbitration. That way teams don't lose the players rights but not offering 100% and if the player is overpaid the arbitrator will sort it out.

 

[me2]

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.

Where are the bolts going to find an equivalent player for a similary salary in the UFA market at that point of the season? They won't. Deadline forces the player to take the money or go to Europe. Deadline forces teams to sign the player or risk the season that year. 2 edged sword that will see more compromise and less holdouts.

 

[me2]

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.

Is rollback is a benefit to the owners? Sure. Is it enough to fix the system? Nope. Its just one part of what is needed and is not a key part. You'll notice it was suggested by the players not the owners. That tells you the owners thought they could get buy without it by using 75-85% qualifying offers and team initiated arbitration in combination with a cap.

The NHLPA needs it every bit as much or more than the owners. Without the 24% reduction the weathiest teams become instantly capbound. They will be dumping players onto the UFA market and not picking any up. That is living hell for the NHLPA as the weakest teams will set the UFA market. UFAs would be signing for ultra cheap contracts, and teams would be using that as leverage against RFAs. Imagine the damage the NHLPA payscales would take if Pronger could only get an offer of $2m/y from Nashville because Philly, NYR and Detroit are capped out!

 

[me2]

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)

Low payroll taxes aren't helpful. Taxing weaker teams is not good for anyone. If Tampa has $40m to spend on players then taking $5m off them is bad. If Toronto has $70m to spend then taxing them on a $40m payroll won't hurt them. Start a payroll high ($39m+).

The key to any good tax system must be the taking of draft picks. Dock a team a 1st rounder for going over $40m. If NYR want to spend $49m+ tax money, fine, make sure they suffer a one ice performance hit to compensate for their spending. Docking draft picks does that.

Ask yourself, would Sather and the NYRs have spend $50m-70m over the last few years and been happy to lose their lottery draft picks while missing the playoffs? Nope. The Rangers would have most likely started rebuilding.

On the other hand the Wings might have been happy to keep spending while they were contenders, losing their draft pick or not. Of course they can't stay at the top indefintely while losing their draft picks since they won't have assets to trade or new talent coming through. A team like Ottawa, which is already built, would be able to afford the loss of picks if it meant keeping the team together during the expensive matured years.

A tax system is going to have to be more than money based if the cap is set higher than $42.5m.

All redistributed money has to go back into hockey operations.

If a team receives $10m in revenue sharing it then takes out $10m of its own money and the owner keeps that while using the $10m in revenue sharing for the payroll. Net result is no advantage.

If the team is losing $10m then adding $10m more in payroll and $10m more in revenue sharing doesn't do a lot to help.

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

Team initiated arbitration gets rid of the need for low QOs. Teams either opt for 100% qualifier or arbitration. Both retain a players rights.

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.

5 picks is still fine, they just need to adjust the areas where penalties occur.

 

[habitue*]

As I wrote again and again on this board, salaries should be based on the Canadian currency value, not the American. Then every team, I hope, would be able to compete. That means a 20-25 % rollback on all salaries earned by players on US based teams and a modification of all contracts in CDN $ for players on Canadian based teams. So, for exemple, Theodore would make 6 million CDN $ instead of 6 million US$. And Holik would make 7 million US instead of 9.5 !!! Adjustsments could be made to player's salaries on US based team on a regular basis to reflect the exchange rate between the two currencies.

45 million hard cap with no linkage and no floor is the best deal the players will ever have.

 

[Winger98]

Those teams should be forced to buy out there players. The players negotiated well for there contracts and they deserve them and other teams do not deserve to pay a haevey price b/c some GM's/Owners were foolish and kept there payroll high knowing full well there was a lockout coming.

Teams could also re-structure those contracts to lower the yearly payments, or grandfather them in with a special rule that those contracts can't be used in arbitration hearings. There are a lot of possibilities to make sure no team gets immediately screwed hard by the cap.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

I don't know I'd be considered a pro-PA person but I'm definitely an anti-owner person. And the issue with coming up with any proposal is creating one that is fair to all the owners which is really difficult. It would be easier if every team had the same revenues and same market factors but they don't. Markets like LA, NY, Toronto, Detroit, etc. can support higher salaries because they make higher revenues. So there has to be a way to even things out in a defined way. So any proposal must start with meaningful revenue sharing:

40% of gate revenues are shared amongst all teams with a condition I will define later in this post. I know in some markets the visiting team is a bigger draw than the home team. In addition, 85% of all television contracts will be shared (including regional TV deals) amongst all teams with no exceptions. Playoff revenues should remain with the playoff teams for the most part but 10% being shared with non-playoff teams would help some teams out quite a bit.

Now on to the bigger issue being the exact system to be used. I would suggest one of 2 potential proposals. Now it is clearly understood that league-wide revenues will not be the same of what it used to be. But it would make sense that the decrease would eventually stabilize. Both would be phased in systems until revenues have stablized and then would eventually be gradually increased. The first proposal would be a non-linked hard cap. The second proposal would work off of the league's linked cap system. Since both would be phased in, the proposals would start off with the players last $49 million cap level (and whatever the percentage would be). Then phased in over the course of 4 yrs or until revenues have stabilized to the point the league has last offered ($37 million or 54%, respectively on the offer). Once the revenues for the entire league have stabilized, then a negotiated set of increases would be used to raise the cap level. Under both proposals, teams can go over the cap but will be taxed $2 for every $1 over the cap. As I mentioned above, here's the condition for revenue sharing: if a team is within 0.5% of the salary cap or have reach/exceed the cap, they forfeit the right to the first part of revenue sharing.

Also, the rollback would be reduced to just 15% but would affect the last contract of ALL players signed or unsigned. Meaning that even if your contract is expired, the rollback means that you're salary from the last point would be reduced by 15%. This would make a rollback meaningful to the league and reducing it would appease the players who weren't happy with a rollback to begin with.

A very low salary floor could be part of the deal but it isn't necessary. Also depending on the deal negotiated upon but $20 million or the percentage that it would relate to is fine. There were a few small market teams that have had to be around that number at times and still lost money. Making them spend more seems a bit crazy.

The other parts (arbitration, qualifying offers, entry level contracts, unrestricted free agent age, etc) can be negotiated further but the basis should be set above first and foremost. But off the top of my head, 100% if you make under $1 million for qualifying offers...90% if over $1 million. Arbitration should be like the MLB's where its just 2 different offers so long as they are within 25% of each other and only one is chosen. UFA age could also be linked to the phased in salary cap so that the age is lowered as the cap lowers as well until stabilized (without going below 28 yrs old). Entry level contract cap of $1 million but removal of easy to achieve bonuses but not removal of bonuses altogether (but still a limit on the amount of performance bonuses to $1.5 million...so if you get a player like Heatley, Kovalchuk or Nash who dominates the league, they still deserve $2.5 million per yr which would be fair value).

 

[Tawnos]

Low payroll taxes aren't helpful. Taxing weaker teams is not good for anyone. If Tampa has $40m to spend on players then taking $5m off them is bad. If Toronto has $70m to spend then taxing them on a $40m payroll won't hurt them. Start a payroll high ($39m+).

Low payroll taxes are helpful. We're talking about keeping salaries down here. It Tampa has $40m to spend then taking $4.75m (in my system) off means that they're going to spend $5m less on players, lowering the market. In a cap system, ALL teams are responsible for setting the market, not just the rich ones. Besides, we're talking about leveling the financial playing field here. Tampa Bay may be paying 4.75m to the lower teams in luxury tax, but let's say there are 3 teams in the high bracket with an average payroll of $47m. Those teams are paying $14.75m in luxury taxes a piece. From those 3 teams alone, $1.63m gets redistributed to each other team, including the Lightning. Suddenly the Lightning are only paying $3.12m, which is still a hit, but not a huge one. Let's continue this for, say, Pittsburgh who is in the lowest bracket and isn't paying any payroll tax. Let's say there are 5 teams in the $1.00/$1.00 bracket with an average payroll of $42m. Each team is paying $6.75m in luxury tax (net loss of $5.12m per team in taxes). $1.46m from that bracket gets redistributed to each team in the lower brackets. So far we have $3.09m in luxury tax funds. Moving to the next bracket, the .50/1.00 one... we have 10 teams in there with an average payroll of $37m. Each team is paying $2.75m in luxury tax (so their taxes paid and received is a net gain of $0.34m in the end). From this bracket we have $2.11m going to each team. Pittsburgh is up to $5.2m in luxury tax funds. 8 teams are in the .25/1.00 bracket. They have an average payroll of $32m. Each team pays $0.75m in payroll (net gain of $4.45m). Each team (5 left) in the no-tax bracket gets $1.2m from this one, totalling for $6.4m in extra payroll. No, staggered systems don't help at all.

Oh, btw... luxury tax money spent on payroll shouldn't count towards the Cap.

The key to any good tax system must be the taking of draft picks. Dock a team a 1st rounder for going over $40m. If NYR want to spend $49m+ tax money, fine, make sure they suffer a one ice performance hit to compensate for their spending. Docking draft picks does that.

If owners cared about their on-ice performance more than money, we wouldn't be locked out. This idea is terrible.

Ask yourself, would Sather and the NYRs have spend $50m-70m over the last few years and been happy to lose their lottery draft picks while missing the playoffs? Nope. The Rangers would have most likely started rebuilding.

If Dolan is telling him to spend the money, or he's going to get fired, then Sather's views on the matter really are irrelevant.

On the other hand the Wings might have been happy to keep spending while they were contenders, losing their draft pick or not. Of course they can't stay at the top indefintely while losing their draft picks since they won't have assets to trade or new talent coming through. A team like Ottawa, which is already built, would be able to afford the loss of picks if it meant keeping the team together during the expensive matured years.

You just made my point... taxing teams for their draft picks isn't going to curtail spending.

A tax system is going to have to be more than money based if the cap is set higher than $42.5m.

Owners willing to take a $14.75m hit for spending $46m in payroll (total player costs: $60.75m) deserve to be paying out to the rest of the league. The point here is that teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary etc now have at leasr $4.45m (non-taxable) more to spend on players than they did before.

If a team receives $10m in revenue sharing it then takes out $10m of its own money and the owner keeps that while using the $10m in revenue sharing for the payroll. Net result is no advantage.

If the team is losing $10m then adding $10m more in payroll and $10m more in revenue sharing doesn't do a lot to help.

Uhh... that was for the luxury tax. Redistributed luxury tax funds go back into hockey operations. Revenue sharing is completely different.

Team initiated arbitration gets rid of the need for low QOs. Teams either opt for 100% qualifier or arbitration. Both retain a players rights.

And if they have an 85% q-offer, the player then has the right to arbitration. Saying one and eliminating the other is not mirror and for this to be fair to both sides, they have to have the same rights under the system.

5 picks is still fine, they just need to adjust the areas where penalties occur.

Explain what you mean by adjusting.

And sorry, 5 picks is not fine. The RFA system is not fine. Teams look at the Glen Wesley signing, which cost 4 1st round picks, and say "no way in hell is this worth it." In order for the RFA system to work how it's supposed to, you need to make it worth it for teams to draw up offer sheets in the first place.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

You just made my point... taxing teams for their draft picks isn't going to curtail spending.

IMO The only way a luxury tax works is if it hits a team where it hurts most, and hits hard. A $.25 per dollar tax as proposed by the PA is ludicrously low. It needs to be at least $1 for $1. How about a wild idea like taxing a team 1 point in the standings per $X over the cap level which triggers the tax. For example, if the Wings wanted to go $7M over that trigger, it could cost them 7 points off their total. The big money for the teams is made in the playoffs, perhaps really penalizing your team the chance to make the playoffs would be even more of a deterrent than fining the team money!

(OK, it's an insane idea & would never fly, but we're all desperate for something to talk about...)

The point here is that teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary etc now have at leasr $4.45m (non-taxable) more to spend on players than they did before.

It is critically important in the new CBA that the NHL learn from MLB's mistakes and outline with incredible specificity that any monies received from luxury tax (if there is one) or revenue sharing MUST be directed toward player salaries/development/the on-ice product. From what I gather, this wasn't specified in MLB's plan and the owners simply pocket that money and don't use it to improve the product. Kinda defeats the intent of the tax in the first place.

In order for the RFA system to work how it's supposed to, you need to make it worth it for teams to draw up offer sheets in the first place.

I thought the whole purpose of the strict penalties for RFA offer shetts was to make it *not* worth it to a team to attempt to steal another team's player?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Not trying to be condecending, but I have to ask...

Being as you are "pro-player" or "pro-union," what is your solution to solving this problem?

Do you continue to hope the owners are lying, or do you believe that the 42.5 million was their breaking point? It is at least evident to me that they were obviously lying about their 31 million cap (930$ million) and 38 million, but their "final" offer at 42.5 mill before canceling the season to me was the most they could give. From here on in, the offer is going to drop.

So I have to ask, does the PA keep on fighting for a no-cap? (Even though they have caved for that once already.) Dispite losing interest, contracts and future revenue, do you... hope for a higher cap?

If your in charge, what do you do?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If it were me, putting on my "Pro-PA" cap on, I'd say try to negotiate as much percentage as possible to a LINKED cap (~57%) to get the floor cap (53%). As well, to generate MORE revenue to UP the cap (since salaries are tied to revenue) I'd want open access to the owners books, and fight tooth and nail for all the income the owners bring in. I'd also want a voice in helping market the game, to ensure max revenue to maximize the cap. This "partnership" could be a win-win for the union and the league if they actually worked together (rather then drown each other in this lockout) and the players could better help market the game with the league's help.

There are two major problems with the game's finances.
1) Revenue disparity among the clubs
2) Salaries are too high

A salary cap fixes one problem, and not the other.
I contend that a strict luxury tax fixes both, while still allowing the highly regarded players the opportunity to cash in, and allowing the winning teams to keep their rosters together by going over the cap, if they so choose.

(Before anyone ignorantly describes the failings of the MLB system, let me say that the levels and levers can be changed to make a luxury tax act much more like a salary cap.)

It's clear to me that the owners never really wanted to negotiate (the take it or leave it offers are the first clue).
But they've won the PR war because today's hockey fan seems riddled with envy. (Somehow, the envy and bitterness never manages to reach the billionaire owners at the top of the food scale).

But we're through that looking glass. I don't know where Bettman and Goodenow are taking this thing.
Good luck, NHL.

 

[Tawnos]

IMO The only way a luxury tax works is if it hits a team where it hurts most, and hits hard. A $.25 per dollar tax as proposed by the PA is ludicrously low. It needs to be at least $1 for $1.

A straight $1 for $1 doesn't end up helping in the long run, because too few teams end up paying it. That's why you need the staggered tax. $.25 is starting point and just in the lower bracket. If you note my offer a few pages back, some teams would even get taxed $2.00/$1.00 over a certain amount.

It is critically important in the new CBA that the NHL learn from MLB's mistakes and outline with incredible specificity that any monies received from luxury tax (if there is one) or revenue sharing MUST be directed toward player salaries/development/the on-ice product. From what I gather, this wasn't specified in MLB's plan and the owners simply pocket that money and don't use it to improve the product. Kinda defeats the intent of the tax in the first place.

Agreed completely.

I thought the whole purpose of the strict penalties for RFA offer shetts was to make it *not* worth it to a team to attempt to steal another team's player?

With a Cap in place, "stealing" RFAs is much, much less likely for the same reason that we'll never see $8m contracts ever again, teams just won't or can't offer that much. Also, they need to prevent offers like Joe Sakic's in 1997 from occuring, where the Rangers front-loaded the offer in an attempt to make sure the Avs couldn't match it. Maybe you stipulate that any matched offer is non-taxable (but if the offer does go through, then the player's new team is taxed) as well, that way teams aren't worried about being forced to move into the next tax bracket.

 

[jaws]

Although I've been behind the PA since day one, I have to say I'm not happy at all with they way they've been fighting this. Having guys in Europe, pissing off fans, finally agreeing to a cap after years of saying "no cap ever," are just a few examples of how the PA has screwed themselves. (Geez, they're acting like owners!). Anyways, here's what I would do:

1. Immediatley create a players league. There's plenty of wealthy businessmen out there and although the NHL owns most of the big rinks, there are still good rinks available to allow a PAHL to happen. Put teams across Canada and in the Northern US, no chessy rule changes, just give the fans what they want-good hockey at good prices. Get the $ to go to charity and the union. No one goes to Europe.

-This will show hockey fan many positives: the players still love the game, its for a good cause, its good value, and it really shows they want to give back to the real hockey fans that have been abandoned by the NHL, i.e. Canadians.

2. Let people know why a cap is bad. The NHL has come with a list of positives on a cap, while the PA has given no real reasons for why it wouldn't accept it. Let fans no why its no good, not only for the players but for the fans.

3. Push for revenue sharing. The owners have tried to split the union, now its the PA's turn. Small markets want the sharing, big markets don't. Revenue sharing will do much more for small teams than a cap will, and it will level the playing field as well as cap both owners and players by default. The fan is the biggest winner, I'd push revenue sharing down the owners throat from the get go.

4. Tell fans why you don't believe the owners. Let them know who owners are. Share the history. Part of the reason why the majority of fans are pro-owner is a lack of education into the business and history of hockey. Wirtz, Snider, Wang, Melnik, Jacobes, Karmonoes, etc., these guys are crooks, have a criminal history, the NHL celebrates in criminal history (Hockey Hall of Fame), and it continues to let criminals into the league-you gotta spell this out for the fans.

5. Get a 3rd party to look take care of the NHLs books in the future. The NHL has offered the PA to look at their books, but it won't do any good because their books are basically legal lies on paper. You have to have a 3rd party declare, control, and distribute the revenues to all parties in order to have honesty. If the owners argue "its their business" try and make the claim that "its just a game," acknolwledge the history of lies, and argue that its the fans who own it. I'm not a lawyer so this probably wont work and is unrealistic, but at least it'll favour the fan.

The fans are the biggest player in this, even though they aren't directly involved. If you treat them as the biggest player, they'll love you. In real life, the NHL has done a great job in getting the fans behind them. I believe they hired Clinton's PR guy to make sure they got the fans.

Fan pressure is the only way to beat the owners. Its the PAs only true weapon. The owners have the fans, therefore they have no real pressure upon them, considering most fans support them and their lockout.

 

[Mat]

Not trying to be condecending, but I have to ask...

Being as you are "pro-player" or "pro-union," what is your solution to solving this problem?
.

30m min cap
40 soft cap at 75%

60/40 gate split like the nfl

heck, in a nutshell, REVENUE SHARING
because what the owners are pushing for now wont help lower market teams at all
a revenue sharing system will allow for lower market teams to pay their top players the money they deserve, and allow them to remain competitive in the league
everybody wins

 

[Mat]

2. Let people know why a cap is bad. The NHL has come with a list of positives on a cap, while the PA has given no real reasons for why it wouldn't accept it. Let fans no why its no good, not only for the players but for the fans.

3. Push for revenue sharing. The owners have tried to split the union, now its the PA's turn. Small markets want the sharing, big markets don't. Revenue sharing will do much more for small teams than a cap will, and it will level the playing field as well as cap both owners and players by default. The fan is the biggest winner, I'd push revenue sharing down the owners throat from the get go.
.

WOOT WOOT