Why have the NHLPA not countered the last NHL offer to keep talks moving along?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Hockey_Nut99 said:
I don't understand why the players proposal has to be THE proposal. Why does their proposal have to be the framework for a new agreement? They seem hard lined just like the owners are. They aren't really helping anything either. Both sides are being like this. They will never agree on the framework. Without that they can't build a cba.
because it is closest to what previously existed which requires less of a leap from the owners to come to the players side then vice versa.

dr
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
eye said:
I know there is a difference in opinion on how to move forward but why did the NHLPA not counter the last NHL offer if for nothing else to keep talks moving along. They could have made a number of counter proposals but seem disinterested in helping the NHL and the owners resolve the financial problems of the league on a longterm basis.

Would it not have been prudent for Goodenow to come back with a stiffer luxury tax proposal, revised arbitration, a compromise on cost linkage, a compromise on the rollback offer etc. etc. etc.

Good Lord.
At what point to the moderators decide that some posts are nothing but trolling expeditions?
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
Because the players are total idiots, and realize they have no power in the situation at all, there won't be any NHL for a year and a half, and the players union doesn't realize it can't win.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Kaiped Krusader said:
It's the union supporters that tend to label the owner supporters with descriptions like "brainwashed", "ignorant", "uneducated", et al.

That's because the s0-called union supporters seem to have many different ways of resolving the issue.
Most of us "union supporters" don't believe the PA has made the right counter-proposal yet.
Funny, most polls at HF show "union supporters" at about 20 to 30 percent of the boards.
Yet we're also the ones most critical of "our side."
The "pro-player" posters aren't supporting every little thing Goodenow says and does.
Most of us recognize that the current PA concessions don't go far enough.

And yet the "pro-owner" people, which comprise 70 percent or more of the people, don't seem to have much of any criticism of the owners. With that many on board, you'd think you'd have more people willing to stray from the "party line."
Instead, we get a lot more "my way or the highway" sentiment.
I've seen few "pro-owner" people willing to budge off the salary cap. Worse, it seems that few are willing to budge from "cost-certainty," which is unheard of.

I still haven't seen one person explain why "cost-certainty" is justifiable. I still haven't seen one person explain how 100 percent Luxury Tax at $40 Million WON'T cut salaries.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
It is a divergence from the topic, but will do so briefly. The Pens already basically have a new building when the new CBA is signed. Slots passed and any Pittsburgh license will be granted to whoever builds a new arena, likely to Mario.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here ...

But shouldn't tax money be counted as revenues?
In Canada, taxpayers are far less likely to fund arenas, so they come out of the owners' and investers' pockets.

Hard to believe people have so much sympathy for owners when they are donating their tax dollars to owners who turn around and sell franchises and buildings for gross profits.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
nomorekids said:
whew, you won't hear that one very often.

What would the Wings do if they couldn't afford to pay future stars like Yan Golubovsky, Yuri Butsayev, Anders Eriksson and Maxim Kuznetzov their due? It'd be a shame to see drafting like that tarnished by a silly salary cap :help:

Bah!
Take the worst picks if you must.
But current NHLers in drafted by the Wings (or signed as UNDRAFTED free agents) include:

Yzerman Fedorov Kozlov
Primeau Datsyuk Zetterberg
Holmstrom Primeau Drake
Knuble Sillinger McCarty
(Greg Johnson/Kunble/MartyLapointe

Lidstrom Fischer
Kronwall Dandenault
McGillis Boughner
Pushor York Ericsson

Osgood

Pretty darned good list of drafted active players (plus Oates ufa.undrafted, though retired now, I think, and Konstantinov.)
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Newsguyone said:
I still haven't seen one person explain how 100 percent Luxury Tax at $40 Million WON'T cut salaries.

First of all, I'd say that's irrelevant, because the PA will never accept such a system. Any system that has such a punitive tax in it is declared to be a cap in essence, and they will have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, how can a tax possibly lower salaries? The system behind the tax is the same, you have to offer pay raises or a player's old salary (which they surely won't accept) just to maintain their rights. A player's salary cannot be lowered, your only choice is to cut them loose, and hire someone else who's cheaper, but not as good.

At best, a punitive tax might slow the inflation of salaries by offering a disincentive to raising them, but it can't lower them.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
First of all, I'd say that's irrelevant, because the NHL will never accept such a system. Any system that has such a punitive tax in it is declared to be a revenue sharing in essence, and they will have nothing to do with it..
i think thats just as accurate ...


dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
PecaFan said:
The system behind the tax is the same, you have to offer pay raises or a player's old salary (which they surely won't accept) just to maintain their rights. A player's salary cannot be lowered, your only choice is to cut them loose, and hire someone else who's cheaper, but not as good.

.
nothing stopping the negotiation of those triggers (arbitration and QO's)

dr
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
PecaFan said:
First of all, I'd say that's irrelevant, because the PA will never accept such a system. Any system that has such a punitive tax in it is declared to be a cap in essence, and they will have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, how can a tax possibly lower salaries? The system behind the tax is the same, you have to offer pay raises or a player's old salary (which they surely won't accept) just to maintain their rights. A player's salary cannot be lowered, your only choice is to cut them loose, and hire someone else who's cheaper, but not as good.

At best, a punitive tax might slow the inflation of salaries by offering a disincentive to raising them, but it can't lower them.

1. You'd say it's irrelevant. But if the players have one card left to play, it is a luxury tax proposal. It has to be.

2. Check out how many NHLers are without contract. A strict luxury tax will bring down salaries ** this year ** if you ask me. Add to that changes in arbitration and some changes to the qualifying offer rules, and you've got your salary reduction

3. It can lower them. ANd it would.
It will DEFLATE salaries. If not within a year, within a few years.
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
I'm sure you're right. I'm not just talking minor injuries. What happens of your $5 million a year player gets his career ended by injury? The team would likely have the contract insured, but if its still valid, it would have to count against the cap. And I haven't seen Mr. Bettman address any of these issues yet.
isnt it kind of hard to fault Bettman for not addressing such issues when the answer is always just a sharp no? You dont put up sheetrock before you frame the walls. Let them agree to some cost certainty and then iron out the details such as injured players and maybe even homegrown talent
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
likea said:
AVERAGED 15000 over the last 3 years, thats just not true


You are right, but only slightly so.

2000 - 2003 they averaged almost 15,600 per year.
2000 - 2004 they averaged almost 14,700 so just below 15,000.

2004 they had their only significant drop which threw my figures slightly off, but not enough to warrent your comment, from basically ranging from 15,000 to almost 17,000 most years from 1986 on.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_pit_attendance.html
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
Newsguyone said:
...I've seen few "pro-owner" people willing to budge off the salary cap. Worse, it seems that few are willing to budge from "cost-certainty," which is unheard of...
What is the distinction between cost certainty and a salary cap? I thought the former was simply an euphemism for the latter.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
txomisc said:
perhaps you mean like your reply to the threads opening post and my subsequent reply to you?

No. Not at all.
My post and your post are what they are.

They are exactly what they are.
Eye's posts tend to be posed as questions. Of course, a second grader knows what Eye thinks the answer is to his question. ANd it's always a shot at the PA.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
misterjaggers said:
What is the distinction between cost certainty and a salary cap? I thought the former was simply an euphemism for the latter.

sorry. When I say cost-certainty, I meant cost-linkage.
It just seems obsene to me that the owners could be so arrogant as to tie salaries directly to revenue.
It's one of those ideas that sound great. Like: Wouldn't it be great if my mortgage was tied to my salary? Or wouldn't it be great if my car payment was tied to my wages?

But we live in a real world.

Apparently, the NHL owners don't have to take responsibility for their decisions.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Newsguyone said:
sorry. When I say cost-certainty, I meant cost-linkage.
It just seems obsene to me that the owners could be so arrogant as to tie salaries directly to revenue.
It's one of those ideas that sound great. Like: Wouldn't it be great if my mortgage was tied to my salary? Or wouldn't it be great if my car payment was tied to my wages?

But we live in a real world.

Apparently, the NHL owners don't have to take responsibility for their decisions.

Yes, the idea of tying salaries to revenues sure has been a disaster for the NBA and NFL. What an onscene and arrogant bunch those people are. :shakehead
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,649
37,445
eye said:
I know there is a difference in opinion on how to move forward but why did the NHLPA not counter the last NHL offer if for nothing else to keep talks moving along. They could have made a number of counter proposals but seem disinterested in helping the NHL and the owners resolve the financial problems of the league on a longterm basis.

Would it not have been prudent for Goodenow to come back with a stiffer luxury tax proposal, revised arbitration, a compromise on cost linkage, a compromise on the rollback offer etc. etc. etc.


Why haven't the NHL owners made another offer to keep things moving. Take off your blinders, please. God forbid you question their tactics.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,875
Missouri
Newsguyone said:
sorry. When I say cost-certainty, I meant cost-linkage.
It just seems obsene to me that the owners could be so arrogant as to tie salaries directly to revenue.
It's one of those ideas that sound great. Like: Wouldn't it be great if my mortgage was tied to my salary? Or wouldn't it be great if my car payment was tied to my wages?

But we live in a real world.

Apparently, the NHL owners don't have to take responsibility for their decisions.

You do realise that every company sets their salary expenditures as some sort of percentage of revenues right? And I guarantee you won't find many that set the number above 50% (anywhere I've ever been associated with it is less than 30%). With a negotiated CBA this number can be enshrined. A union can guarantee a number. A union can could guarantee it does not fall below a certain precentage (i.e. prevent 30 teams running a payroll of $15 mil and raking in the cash). Can negotiate a trigger to have that percentage increase if revenues increase etc. etc. etc. Negotiating this type of tying salaries to revenue can actually provide the workforce with significant flexibility and LEVERAGE within the company....you know it's almost as with they would have a partnership.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Newsguyone said:
I still haven't seen one person explain why "cost-certainty" is justifiable. I still haven't seen one person explain how 100 percent Luxury Tax at $40 Million WON'T cut salaries.

Since the players are not proposing and almost certainly will not offer a 100 percent luxury tax, it's kind of a moot discussion, but we'll have it anyhow.
A 100 percent luxury tax won't necessarily cut salaries for a couple reasons.
First, it makes the assumption teams like the Rangers, Flyers, Maple Leafs, Red Wings won't be willing to incur luxury tax costs., a la the NY Yankees and BoSox. If the Maple Leafs, for example, are able to turn a substantial profit with a $65 million payroll, why do you assume they wouldn't be willing to keep that payroll, profit a little less and/or pass along the additional costs to the customers (who, in Toronto, are all-to-willing to pay it)?
Second, if the system passes along tax revenues to smaller-market teams to boost their payrolls, it creates an inflationary system by which all salaries will rise. It will flood the player market with funds that would otherwise not exist, driving up the salary for every player. If, for example, Nashville receives an additional $10 million a year for payroll and requires Nashville to spend that money, players who would otherwise would receive $1 million (just throwing out a number) will now command $1.25 million because they know the team has the money. That, in turn, forces Phoenix, Atlanta and every other team in the league to increase salaries for similarly skilled players.
Essentially, at its best a luxury tax doesn't necessarily reduce salaries so much as it shifts revenue from one team to another in hopes it will help the latter compete better. And that's in an ideal situation. The only luxury tax in existence has proved to be far less than ideal.
Beyond that, you're wrong to assume the entire purpose of a cap is cutting salaries. It is also designed to restore a level of competitive balance. That level exists in the NFL and NBA (hmmm ... I wonder why) and not the NHL and MLB.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
go kim johnsson said:
Why haven't the NHL owners made another offer to keep things moving. Take off your blinders, please. God forbid you question their tactics.

I certainly don't give the owners a pass, but the fact remains the NHL made the last offer and the PA rejected the last offer. Standard negotiating procedures would dictate that the ball is in the PA's court.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
tantalum said:
You do realise that every company sets their salary expenditures as some sort of percentage of revenues right? .
wrong .. so how many budgets have you completed at a corporate level ?

salaries certainly are compared to revenues, but they are not set as a percentage of revenues.

tantalum said:
And I guarantee you won't find many that set the number above 50% (anywhere I've ever been associated with it is less than 30%). .
thats because you wont find many industries that have the dynamics of the sports industry. Issues ranging from scarcity of talent to restriction of movement by the employee's.

tantalum said:
it's almost as with they would have a partnership.
its not a partnership and the players dont want anything to do with partnering with the owners. imagine being forced to be a partner with Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. lol
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
Yes, the idea of tying salaries to revenues sure has been a disaster for the NBA and NFL. What an onscene and arrogant bunch those people are. :shakehead
NHL owners are not at all interested in the NBA model and arent willing to do their part in creating an NFL type model.

nope, the NHL owners want an NHL model. no comparison to the NBA and NFL, other than the "N" in their name.

dr
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
DR said:
NHL owners are not at all interested in the NBA model and arent willing to do their part in creating an NFL type model.

nope, the NHL owners want an NHL model. no comparison to the NBA and NFL, other than the "N" in their name.

dr

How do you know the NHL owners wouldn't accept an NBA model? Are you Bill Daly? I'm so sick of people posting here who claim to know what Gary Bettman wants or what Bob Goodenow wants. We haven't a clue.

Simply because the owners haven't offered an NBA-style system doesn't mean they wouldn't accept one. At some point a compromise will have to be reached and such a system might be that compromise.
Unfortunately, this is the great strategic flaw of the PA. They could put a great deal of pressure on Bettman and the hardline owners by proposing this kind of system. My guess is it would a) turn public opinion in their favor and b) cause cracks, if not a complete break, in owner solidarity. By instead claiming they will "never" work under a cap, they simply embolden the hardliners and increase the likelihood of an impasse. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
PA leadership = :dunce:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->