24% rollback

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by hockeytown9321, Dec 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Hey KID..i dont think you understand how much MONEY the owners would save from that huge rollback....

    That is HUGE!
     
  4. deathbear

    deathbear Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Manitoba
    Home Page:
    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...
     
  5. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    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......
     
  6. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said it perfectly.
     
  8. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    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.
     
  9. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    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.
     
  10. Doc Hollywood

    Doc Hollywood Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly
     
  11. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To the owners, that 'something' is a cap.
     
  12. chaachie12

    chaachie12 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Home Page:
    '

    wouldn't that be part of the old CBA? Who says this would be hard rule in the new? :dunno:
     
  13. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY

    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.
     
  15. Doc Hollywood

    Doc Hollywood Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the Owners want this CBA to work then they must work together.
     
  16. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. DownFromNJ

    DownFromNJ Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Isn't a 24% rollback already a ~300 million dollar concession?
     
  18. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  21. vanlady

    vanlady Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  22. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Down the road? They're better off with linkage.
     
  23. SwisshockeyAcademy

    SwisshockeyAcademy Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  24. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad I'm not alone on this. Well said.
     
  25. 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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"