24% rollback

[hockeytown9321]

According to sportsnet, the player's proposal included a 24% salary rollback.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20041209_122430_3892

Click to read more...

 

[Kid Canada]

Doesn't really make a difference. The owners won't be interested in this, simply because it's a 1 time roll back. Doesn't appeal at all to the owners. 24% is surely much higher than the reported 10% that was rumored, however, it still will not appeal to the NHL and the owners.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Hey KID..i dont think you understand how much MONEY the owners would save from that huge rollback....

That is HUGE!

 

[deathbear]

if this is true, i can't say i'm totally with the owners on this. that is a SUBSTANTIAL concession on the pa's behalf.

the nhl has to be willing to budge a bit too. they must not forget just how damaging a cancelled season would be...

 

[Benji Frank]

That does more or less give the owners the 1.3 mill ave (based on last year 1.8 mill) they're after, if true. Then it'd be up to them to maintain it.......

No wonder it's got the owners behind closed doors. If it has a solid luxury tax system attached, it's a good foundation from which to counter......

 

[Kid Canada]

Hey KID..i dont think you understand how much MONEY the owners would save from that huge rollback....

That is HUGE!

It's huge, but Burke said it nicely a few days ago. It'd have to be yearly cut backs. Not a one time roll back. Doesn't appeal to the owners.

 

[Kid Canada]

No wonder it's got the owners behind closed doors. If it has a solid luxury tax system attached, it's a good foundation from which to counter......

You said it perfectly.

 

[mooseOAK*]

It is a hefty rollback for sure, but with the current arbitration system and automatic 10% raises to RFA's it could be made back in a few years. Something has to go along with it.

 

[FLYLine27*]

It's huge, but Burke said it nicely a few days ago. It'd have to be yearly cut backs. Not a one time roll back. Doesn't appeal to the owners.

It doesnt have to be a ONE TIME THING..UNLESS....UNless the owners go SPENDING crazy AGAIN and start raising everyones salary again like they did in the past 10 years.

 

[Doc Hollywood]

It doesnt have to be a ONE TIME THING..UNLESS....UNless the owners go SPENDING crazy AGAIN and start raising everyones salary again like they did in the past 10 years.

Exactly

 

[Kid Canada]

It is a hefty rollback for sure, but with the current arbitration system and automatic 10% raises to RFA's it could be made back in a few years. Something has to go along with it.

To the owners, that 'something' is a cap.

 

[chaachie12]

It is a hefty rollback for sure, but with the current arbitration system and automatic 10% raises to RFA's it could be made back in a few years. Something has to go along with it.

'

wouldn't that be part of the old CBA? Who says this would be hard rule in the new?

 

[Kid Canada]

It doesnt have to be a ONE TIME THING..UNLESS....UNless the owners go SPENDING crazy AGAIN and start raising everyones salary again like they did in the past 10 years.

What makes you think they won't spend again? Detroit will, Toronto will, New York will, Dallas will, that's 4 teams too many. That's exactly what the NHL doesn't want.

 

[FLYLine27*]

What makes you think they won't spend again? Detroit will, Toronto will, New York will, Dallas will, that's 4 teams too many. That's exactly what the NHL doesn't want.

They can...and they will have to pay with Luxary taxes for going over 45 and very very strick penalties over 60.(Didnt here this yet..buyt that was was rumored) If the cut the salarys back 25 percent then only 5 or 6 teams will be over 40 million.

 

[Doc Hollywood]

What makes you think they won't spend again? Detroit will, Toronto will, New York will, Dallas will, that's 4 teams too many. That's exactly what the NHL doesn't want.

If the Owners want this CBA to work then they must work together.

 

[Kid Canada]

If the Owners want this CBA to work then they must work together.

I hope that's true, I really do. But the owners greed to get those players has been exposed year after year. They've proven stupidity year after year. So I hope they can work together, but basing a new CBA around owners 'working together' isn't realistic and extremely risky. What happens when a new owner comes in and wants to make a big splash, as we've all seen this happen before. It can't work that way, it won't work that way.

The NHL is looking for the safest way to have guarenteed revenues. Hoping that the owners will 'work together' is the furthest thing from safest.

 

[DownFromNJ]

Isn't a 24% rollback already a ~300 million dollar concession?

 

[vanlady]

NHLPA has offered half a billion in concessions.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/

 

[hockeytown9321]

Isn't a 24% rollback already a ~300 million dollar concession?

At the very least its a $316 million concession. If you believe the owners payroll figures of $1.5 billion, its a $360 million concession.

 

[Kid Canada]

NHLPA has offered half a billion in concessions.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

However, the NHLPA is doing a good job with the PR.

 

[vanlady]

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

However, the NHLPA is doing a good job with the PR.

Bettman and the owners would have rocks in there heads if they turn it down. The rollback is contingent on no linkage. So are the owners better off with half a billion dollars in savings or something much less down the road.

 

[Kid Canada]

Bettman and the owners would have rocks in there heads if they turn it down. The rollback is contingent on no linkage. So are the owners better off with half a billion dollars in savings or something much less down the road.

Down the road? They're better off with linkage.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Close to 500 million, that's almost double than what was rumored previously. The NHLPA really wants this 1 time roll back. Yes, it is a lot of money, but I don't believe it will interest the owners as much as people think it will, because of the longer term effects. A one time roll back, is a one time roll back, won't interest the owners.

However, the NHLPA is doing a good job with the PR.

It will be of no interest to the owners unless there is much more thrown in with it. A rollback addresses next to none of the issues long term.

 

[Kid Canada]

It will be of no interest to the owners unless there is much more thrown in with it. A rollback addresses next to none of the issues long term.

Glad I'm not alone on this. Well said.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The salary rollback means nothing if there are not control mechanisms to prevent further salary escalation. the 24% number is great, but if the system remains unchanged then its nothing but grandstanding. For the owners to go for this proposal it would have to include a cap on rookie salaries, a tax with teeth, team arbitration and a reviewed qualification system. Those mechanisms allow for cost controls. That is as close to a cap that still gives growth potential for the players as you can get IMO. Without those the NHLPA is just throwing out a big number hoping to impress the fans and media who have not been following the motivations of the league.