What is the bone JR and NHLPA want?

[EricBowser]

What does the NHLPA want out of this?

free agency reduced to closer age of 27 and after 6 years in NHL

waivers changed to stop from being reassigned to AHL/ECHL after 1-yr NHL service

Waiver Draft eliminated

baseball style arbitration

European entry draft rights reduced from eternity to 4-years

A say in marketing and rule changes

.... what else could the NHLPA want that doesn't involve the salary cap concepts

Click to read more...

 

[hubofhockey]

How 'bout

1. A franchise player, one per team, who is exempt from the cap. Set cap at $38-$40M, and then allow ONE player to be added on top, with heavy tax. Great olive branch to get over this cap-price impasse. Also great for marketing.

2. A players' share in sale of all franchises -- an equity position, not unlike the realtor who sells your house. Let's say 3 percent. Down the road, if a franchise sells for $300 million (now there's humor), the PA collects $9 million.

And that's just for starters.;

There are a thousand ways to sweeten this deal, for both sides, but they remain constipated in thought. They simply call that: part of the process.

kpd/ktf/kpd

 

[BLONG7]

1. A franchise player, one per team, who is exempt from the cap. Set cap at $38-$40M, and then allow ONE player to be added on top, with heavy tax. Great olive branch to get over this cap-price impasse. Also great for marketing.

2. A players' share in sale of all franchises -- an equity position, not unlike the realtor who sells your house. Let's say 3 percent. Down the road, if a franchise sells for $300 million (now there's humor), the PA collects $9 million.

And that's just for starters.;

There are a thousand ways to sweeten this deal, for both sides, but they remain constipated in thought. They simply call that: part of the process.

kpd/ktf/kpd

good points, there are several things that the owners could do for the PA...and they should, if the PA can blink on a cap number that is good for the business, then if the business succeeds, then the players should be rewarded somehow... This type of thinking should have been taking place in Aug/Sept. and it is this type of thinking that Gary and Knob were refusing to do in Aug/Sept. which is why if this fiasco ever ends both should be shown the door...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

1. A franchise player, one per team, who is exempt from the cap. Set cap at $38-$40M, and then allow ONE player to be added on top, with heavy tax. Great olive branch to get over this cap-price impasse. Also great for marketing.

2. A players' share in sale of all franchises -- an equity position, not unlike the realtor who sells your house. Let's say 3 percent. Down the road, if a franchise sells for $300 million (now there's humor), the PA collects $9 million.

And that's just for starters.;

There are a thousand ways to sweeten this deal, for both sides, but they remain constipated in thought. They simply call that: part of the process.

kpd/ktf/kpd

Both of those are not smart ideas IMO.

Franchise player exemptions are extremely dangerous and set presidents that each and every team has to live up to. If you're Colorado, who is your franchise player and who gets snubbed and screwed over in the long run, Forsberg or Sakic? If you're Calgary or Vancouver, you're screwed and forced to pay Iginla or Naslund/Bertuzzi (another Catch-22) what the big spenders blow on their franchise players. What part of escalation being bad for the game did you miss over the past 10 years Kevin? Unless there are massive limitations placed on the clause that restrict who can be a franchise player and what he can be paid it's a no go IMO.

A players share in the sale of a franchise is just ridiculous. The minute the players want to belly up a chunk of coint to by franchises and build arenas, then I will change my mind. But for anyone who invests a large chunk of coin into an enterprise and then is expected to cough up money to non-risk takers upon the sale of that investment, well that doesn't work in this world. Or would you suggest that when the Dupont Estate is sold that all of your yard maintence technicians should be getting a chunk of the residual funds as well?

I have no problem with players getting paid and paid handsomely, but come on. They assume no risk and no responsibility toward the game, and they show zero respect for their fellow players (Steve Moore, watch out for that bus!) or the league in which they play. Why should they garner the benefits reserved for those who are investors and are willing assume risk and responsibility? It makes no sense.

 

[nyrmessier011]

There are a thousand ways to sweeten this deal, for both sides, but they remain constipated in thought. They simply call that: part of the process.

kpd/ktf/kpd

I agree, i was looking at the CBA's of other leagues the other day...they are so complicated i got a headach. They are extremely creative and thought thro by both parties to give each side what they want to the most possible extent...one side didn't just win or lose, they comprimised...in the NHL, it seems as though there's a dozen basic concepts and a number each side wants. i hope that "workable concept" is finally something creative.

 

[broman]

Well yeah, except that there's only room for 30 franchise players league-wide. So CGYs of this world gain because there are way fewer takers for Iginla offering obscene sums of money. IMO it would make a major difference to the present "escalation" as you put it.

Also, the Naslund/Bertuzzi dilemma would in fact benefit the owners (and the league as a whole, if you like), as it would provide an indirect cap on franchise player value. There's no way you can give one twice the money the other is ever able to get without seriously disturbing team chemistry.

Getting a cut on team sale price would be no different from stock options. You do your share to build up franchise value, and receive a reward in the end. All's well. Except that in this case that would be a remote possibility at best, as teams don't really get sold that often. Which is why I don't think it makes much sense.

 

[hubofhockey]

Methinks some of you look through too narrow a tunnel here.

Sure, there are significant drags that can be put on the franchise player.

Let's consider some -- in context with what has been trotted up in the last few months/years.

Let's start with the franchise player only able to be paid a fixed percentage of the total cap. So, if the cap is $38M, maybe the franchise player can be maxed at ONLY $7.6M (20 percent of total gross). And, to make it more onerous, a 50 percent tax that goes into revenue share.
Also: one of my personal favorites: the deal of the Franchise guy--and only his deal--is NOT fully guaranteed. If he turns Turgeon or Holik bad, then he can be bought out at 25 cents or 50 cents on the dollar. True relief there for owners. And, he is declared a UFA.
So many ways to go with this, as a means of bridging the gap between the owners' cap figure and the players' cap figure -- why are you pro-owner folk so afraid to ruminate over this as that conduit? It does not have to be this hyper-inflationary ploy that you make it. It's right there, so easy, and such a compromise.

Geez, invent a little will ya. And use the basic numbers that are now in play.

ktf/kpd/hoh

 

[Sanderson]

If you want to add the Franchise-player option, you should make their salary ineligible for comparison in salary arbitration (for non-franchise-players). That wouldn't stop salary escalation, but it basically takes away the cream of the crop for players who are just rising to the star-level.

I don't think multiple stars on a team would be hurt by this situation. The teams still have roughly 40 million to spend on players, enough to spend 5-7 million for other players.
Not to forget: It's not likely that teams will spend 10-11 million on star players now, there is no need for it. That would bring the franchise-player down to the best payed players of the team.

 

[19nazzy]

Baseball style arbitration is more pro-owner than for the players.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Also: one of my personal favorites: the deal of the Franchise guy--and only his deal--is NOT fully guaranteed. If he turns Turgeon or Holik bad, then he can be bought out at 25 cents or 50 cents on the dollar. True relief there for owners. And, he is declared a UFA.

Or simply do as the NFL does, and make Franchise player deals for one year only. If you have a good year, then you get re-upped. If you don't, somebody takes your place. Throw in some restrictions on long term deals, and its workable.

So many ways to go with this, as a means of bridging the gap between the owners' cap figure and the players' cap figure -- why are you pro-owner folk so afraid to ruminate over this as that conduit? It does not have to be this hyper-inflationary ploy that you make it. It's right there, so easy, and such a compromise.

Geez, invent a little will ya. And use the basic numbers that are now in play.

ktf/kpd/hoh

There have been a myriad of proposals and suggestions made my many, many hockey people. Burke, Conway, ESPN, TSN, posters on this very board. Many of these proposals would have worked, or at least should have been given the chance to. But this long ago stopped being about "making it work" and has since become "ensuring we win."

It'll be a pyrrich victory, whatever it is.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Franchise player exemptions are extremely dangerous and set presidents that each and every team has to live up to. If you're Colorado, who is your franchise player and who gets snubbed and screwed over in the long run, Forsberg or Sakic? If you're Calgary or Vancouver, you're screwed and forced to pay Iginla or Naslund/Bertuzzi (another Catch-22) what the big spenders blow on their franchise players. What part of escalation being bad for the game did you miss over the past 10 years Kevin? Unless there are massive limitations placed on the clause that restrict who can be a franchise player and what he can be paid it's a no go IMO.

It's really not inflationary because there are a max of 30 franchise players league-wide...most likely there will be 15-20 of these guys each year. It wouldn't be easy for an FA to compare to these guys because if they ask for $8 million they are going to price themselves out of the market. How many teams are going to be able to fit $8 million under a $38-$42 million cap? Not many, and those that can won't because they are spending $31 million for a reason, they can't afford any more.

But, let's say you max the franchise player contract at $8 or $9 million and you tax it 50% or 60%. Does that take care of your inflationary problems?

A players share in the sale of a franchise is just ridiculous. The minute the players want to belly up a chunk of coint to by franchises and build arenas, then I will change my mind. But for anyone who invests a large chunk of coin into an enterprise and then is expected to cough up money to non-risk takers upon the sale of that investment, well that doesn't work in this world. Or would you suggest that when the Dupont Estate is sold that all of your yard maintence technicians should be getting a chunk of the residual funds as well?

Fair enough...but if the players take a linkage deal than they should absolutely get a % when franchises are sold.

 

[speeds]

I'm sure I'm missing something, but why would the players want the waiver draft eliminated?

I would think they like the waiver draft, because it doesn't allow NHL calibre players to be accumulated by one team, and sent to the minors, if another team could use them on their NHL roster? It also improves parity, which (theoretically) gives more players a chance at the Cup.

I guess I can see why some guys might not want to move because they are claimed in the waiver draft, or whatever, but if anything I would think the players might want the waiver restrictions dropped to 16 skaters instead of the current 18?

 

[Mess]

Fair enough...but if the players take a linkage deal than they should absolutely get a % when franchises are sold.

They would as long as Franchise Sales is included in Total League Revenue, which it should be (but not sure if it is ) ..

If an NHL owner Triples his value of the team, then that amount increase should effect the Hard Cap ceinings and floor in the CBA .. IMO

 

[mooseOAK*]

They would as long as Franchise Sales is included in Total League Revenue, which it should be (but not sure if it is ) ..

If an NHL owner Triples his value of the team, then that amount increase should effect the Hard Cap ceinings and floor in the CBA .. IMO

The revenue from the increase in the value of the franchise, if it happens, will be in the hands of people who aren't in the league any longer.

 

[HAWKSWINHAWKSWIN]

How about just getting out of this mess without looking like a bunch of idiots who eventually settled for less than what was originally offered?

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Didn't Jacobs just say something along the lines of the players having an escrow account where they would have to give money back at the end of the season if it is needed. The players don't want this he said, but if it happened then shouldn't players definitely be rewarded if the league succeeds? Like in the way the first poster said or in some other ways as well.

 

[jamiebez]

They would as long as Franchise Sales is included in Total League Revenue, which it should be (but not sure if it is ) ..

If an NHL owner Triples his value of the team, then that amount increase should effect the Hard Cap ceinings and floor in the CBA .. IMO

It isn't included in league revenue, and I don't think it should be. They can't even agree on revenue, how will they agree on franchise values? Using the sale price is one idea, but teams like Boston, Chicago, Detroit, etc may never be sold. What are they worth?

Generally, franchise values will go up if a team's revenue goes up, and the players will share in that via a higher cap. Assuming the deal has upward linkage, which the league is receptive to.

Anyway, in terms of the "bone" the players want, it doesn't have to be financial. The players could be given voting power on issues like rule changes, equipment changes, TV broadcasts, franchise relocation/expansion, etc.

Now that would be a real "partnership"