Why not trigger another rollback - not a cap

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by thinkwild, Feb 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    It's a masterful PR slogan. "They rejected their own offer". Very cute, kudos. And it has spread like wildfire, it really resonates. Amazing.

    If the players offer doesnt end up achieving what the owners hardest line possible proposal calls for, the owners get their ridiculous fountain of caps installed and a new precedent set. Right. If the triggers are negotiable, they are still negotiaing a linkage. And worse, then instituting a false market they dont accept when the linkage amount is exceeded.

    The players have already accepted the concept of a rollback. Instead of the cap being implemented if "it doesnt work", how about they just do another market correcting rollback in 3 years, and then find further adjustments to the model based on the new evidence of how the changes worked?

    At some point, if the owners keep spending this money, after they are given it back, they cant claim its not the proper market value.
     
  2. no13matssundin

    no13matssundin Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, all I know is that I just saw Goodenow admit with his own lips that, by proxy, the 24% rollback would never work. because he said "if we sign this, we know that it would convert to their deal"... um, why is that Bob? Is it because your whole PR deal was a big sham? I thought this would "reset the playing field" as you said. Anyone who supports the PA after tonight deserves this guy.
     
  3. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because two of the triggers have already been met, without playing a single game. AKA we will let you have your deal for a day and have ours for the next 5 years 364 days.
     
  4. dawgbone

    dawgbone Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    21,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    cough *negotiate *cough...

    Oh, sorry, that kind of slipped out. Had he spent more than 15 seconds thinking about it before rejecting it, maybe he could have tried to negotiate more concessions... i.e. a mandatory 2 year period... or not just 1 trigger had to be met, but 3.

    I think there was a lot of room for Goodenow to negotiate from, he just chose not too.
     
  5. kingsfan

    kingsfan Yes my liege!

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    12,557
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Location:
    Manitoba, Canada
    Home Page:
    So Detroit, NYR etc. can spend like drunken sailors while Nashville and the like get to feed on the scraps then, once every 2-3 years or whatever, the players get a roll back? What does that fix? How does this help out the weaker teams?
     
  6. jcab2000

    jcab2000 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC

    The NHLPA offer wasn't supposed to solve any problems though.
     
  7. jcab2000

    jcab2000 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    There is nothing that Goodenow wants other than the owners to lose money. Maybe if there was a trigger that all 30 teams lose more than $10 million a year, he'd consider it.
     
  8. NewBreed19

    NewBreed19 Guest

    Exactly why there is an impending doom! The NHLPA refuses to accept the problems, which will hurt them if an impasse comes into play. :banghead:
     
  9. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    This will be my feeling as well if by Monday we learn they didn't even try to tweak it and negotiate off of it. Those triggers as they stand now are ridiculous, but who's to say it wouldn't be possible to have triggers that compromise between the financial landscape the owners want and the one the players want.

    Talk about the numbers, have them set a longer try-out period, make it difficult for the owners to just be irresponsible spenders in order to trigger their own cap system, etc. This is what negotiators like Bettman and Goodenow are paid to do, not whine through the media how the other side is too stubborn.
     
  10. MLH

    MLH Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He wouldn't consider anything. He didn't negotiate the triggers. He's fully aware that his December proposal was merely a $600M bribe to keep the system the same. Bettman called his bluff. His "proposal" was supposed to guarantee that the NHL's economic system would be fixed. These triggers are clearly too restrictive. The fact that he wasn't willing to consider more PA-favorable triggers is the most telling of today's developments.
     
  11. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Negotiate linkage?
     
  12. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    On UFA's, sure. Fill yer boots. Nashville will do just fine on its own, no need to worry. They wont have room for UFAs. And RFAs will be in a new and improved system, with more controls for GM's to manage it properly. Guaranteed. :) Nashvilles players will still be quite cheap when they become elite. And probably better odds at a cup then the UFA loaded teams.
     
  13. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    If the new CBA allows a 24% rollback every 3 years, players and their agents will build that into their contract negotiations. Players will sit out until they receive contracts 25% higher than they would have demanded otherwise. Those numbers will be used in arbitration hearings as well. The only result of including the possiblility of a 24% rollback would be to escalate salary increases to compensate for it.
     
  14. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Players dont seem to generally demand an arbitrary number as a salary, they ask for fair compensation relative to what the owners are paying everyone else. And this new proposed PA market has more controls to keep it stable.

    It seems hard to believe in 3 years such a large percentage as 24% would be needed as an adjustment again. And its just a rollback adjustment until they get the model right so its stable. Because the players wont want to accept the linkage/cap concept during negotiations. It can only be forced on them. But they have shown they will roll back and keep trying to make a stable system. But you cant choose the level it will settle at, the marketplace does that. So find an acceptable market by continuing to adjust without using a cap.
     
  15. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Besides, the owners have manipulated all their losses to peak during the last 2 years. In 3 years from now, I doubt they will be able to reproduce such losses. How many times can you accelerate your write downs? :)
     
  16. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    And every player will ask for 24% extra to compensate for a future rollback. The NHLPA mastered manipulating the system over the last 10 years and will do so again.

    Since the previous CBA had no controls, a new one will have more. But what the players offered in their December proposal does little to slow salary escalation.

    I have seen no indication that the players have any interest whatsoever in ‘getting the model right so it is stable’. If the players were really interested in that, they would not be so strongly opposed to a salary cap…which would, indeed, stabilize the system. As far as I can tell, the players are only interested in getting the maximum paycheck even at the expense of contraction, which would put some of their fellow union members out of work.
     
  17. krandor

    krandor Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As much as I hate to say it, it does look like impending doom for the NHL. If the lockout continues, fan base will continue to erode and the league may be done. On the other hand, if the NHL takes the NHLPA offer with no triggers, the financial state of the league will not improve and a league losing money cannot continue and teams will fold and possibly the league as well.

    If the NHLPA is really doing this for the players that are following them, they need to realize the financial health of the league has to be improved or there may not be a league for the players that come after them. If they really believe their proposal will do that, then guarnatee it with triggers. If it won't do that, they are going to hurt the players following them the most..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"