24% rollback

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Kid Canada said:
The Yankees are a prime example of what's wrong with baseball and on a smaller scale, sports in general.

Might help clarify if you could expound on your declarations with more than one sentence.

Since you didn't, let's guess: "The Yankees are a prime example of what's wrong with baseball and on a smaller scale, sports in general."

Meaning, a team that has an incredible revenue base (admittedly one that dwarfs all other franchises), spends lavishly on acquiring talent...and has yet to win a World championship in this century. That's bad. I guess if they won the last four years, it would have been "less" horrible?

Wealthy, highly profitable sports franchises are bad. Give us more of those great franchises that bleed losses annually. :speechles

Cla$$ envy is awkward as is. When it is totally unjustified, it's insufferable.

(Disclosure: not a Yankee fan.)
 
Last edited:

Heimy

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,736
0
I was just here
Visit site
After reading all the back and forth on the past 7 pages, all I hope is the owners and PA are a lot less intractable than some here.

I see some criticism of small market teams. But those teams didn't just show up and join on a lark. They were invited to join and PAID for the privilege. And as members in a league, shouldn't they expect (if not demand) the rules work equally for ALL it's members? It seems like some believe allowing "free markets" to determine the league's destiny is the way to go. They view the teams as individual businesses. I'd like them to view a LEAGUE differently. Consider taking the view that a league is designed and intended to allow competition using common rules developed to bring out the best in sports rather than to give an unfair advantage to the wealthiest teams. Afterall, why should any team that is considered to be an equal member of a league get any advantage? Why should any team be placed at a disadvantage? If you aren't playing on a level playing field then what's the point of joining?

Providing for cost certainty for the NHL isn't some horrible idea. Done reasonably, it won't lessen the quality of the game or enhance the risk of losing the best players to other leagues. It also may not guarantee profitability to each and every owner. But it should guarantee that no members lose money season in, season out, due to a handful of wealthy, if short-sighted members.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
I'm extremely disheartened to see so many buying into this very obvious attempt by the players' union to make gains in popular opinion. This propsal is a starting point, but just barely. 10 years of damage has been done, but this offer they have made lacks the concessions to sustain cost certainty. It is barely a change from the current situation that has created this mess.
This is what needs to be done to have a deal;

In lieu of a salary cap, luxury tax of $0.75/dollar over 30 million; dollar for dollar over 35 million; 1.25 at 36 1.5 at 38; 1.75 at 40 and 2.00 for every dollar at 42 million. After 42 million, it increases a dollar for every million A salary floor of 26 million is also implemented. A team must have a payroll of this amount to share in the luxury tax fund.

There is also an individual salary cap of 6 million. No player can earn over 6 million, including bonuses.

The money collected from the luxury tax is split as follows: 70% paid to teams over the salary threshold of 26 million and below 32 million. All teams within this salary bracket receives an equal share. 25% goes to the NHLPA retirement fund.

Salary rollbacks of 5% on all remaining years of all contracts. Each year after this year the rollback is from the previous years amount.

Restricted Free agency is abolished. Players get Unrestricted Free agency across the board. A player 1 time in his career can opt for salary arbitration (with the one or the other system, not an arbitrator picking a middle ground) in lieu of free agency.

The season is reduced to 72 games.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
kerrly said:
Or not put an elecrtric dog collar on the dog and he runs out in the street and gets pulverized by a bus.

News flash, the NHL is in bad shape. Not just because of some of the bad contracts given out either i.e. Holik, Yashin etc. But also because of the system. Certain teams will do certain things that suit them based upon their budgets, which in turn effect teams with different budgets through arbitration, contract negotiations, qualifying offers etc.

Ok...so they dont need to put a 30 million dollar or 40 million dollar cap. Let the big teams spend up to 55 million and then let them shell out another 7 million(from luxary tax/revenue sharing) to the teams that dont have that type of money and let them spend more or help there money state.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
I'
The season is reduced to 72 games.


Why oh WHY would ANY REAL hockey fan want to see LESS games?!?! Im still trying to figure this out. I can understand why players and owners would but FANS...i mean COME ON...are you really fans of the sport????? I am Missing something here?? Please give me a reason why I fan would like to see less games....dont give me a reason the players or owners would like...less injuries because EVERY team plays the same amount of games and that is EQUAL for all teams.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
it is a concession to the players to give them more rest between games . It is the one issue that both at one time seemed to agree on--less games for more rest. If anything the owners would be against and the players in favour. The quality of the games may improve if the players get more rest. There are enough games with a 64 game schedule and playoffs.

EDIT: I am not making this proposal as a fan, but attempting to from the persective of somewhere between the NHL and PA. like I said I get enough hockey. I am a Hockey fan, not just an NHL fan. I watch NHL, CIS, CHL, NCAA, AHL. The NHL players could use more rest days. They average 4 games for 9 nights. That doesn't offer enough time for players to get quality rest when you factor in travel schedules. it could reduce injuries as well and lost time to injuries in addition to what I already pointed out as benefits.

and son, I have been a hockey fan a lot longer than the mere 22 years you've been around. ;)
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Ok...so they dont need to put a 30 million dollar or 40 million dollar cap. Let the big teams spend up to 55 million and then let them shell out another 7 million(from luxary tax/revenue sharing) to the teams that dont have that type of money and let them spend more or help there money state.

7 million in taxes for a $55 million payroll, is not even close to enough.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Why oh WHY would ANY REAL hockey fan want to see LESS games?!?! Im still trying to figure this out. I can understand why players and owners would but FANS...i mean COME ON...are you really fans of the sport????? I am Missing something here?? Please give me a reason why I fan would like to see less games....dont give me a reason the players or owners would like...less injuries because EVERY team plays the same amount of games and that is EQUAL for all teams.

In the overall picture it would lessen injuries. And I think that people would like to see this because we think the players are overworked and think less games would bring the competition level up.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
it is a concession to the players to give them more rest between games . It is the one issue that both at one time seemed to agree on--less games for more rest. If anything the owners would be against and the players in favour. The quality of the games may improve if the players get more rest. There are enough games with a 64 game schedule and playoffs.

The owners are trying to make more money as it is. Cutting off five home games off each teams schedule will cost each team at least $3.6M (5 games X 18000 games (assuming sellouts) x $40.00 per ticket). More if you include merchandise, concessions and other revenue lost.

If you just want to allow players to rest, you can have an 82 game schedule, but each player can only play in 72 games? Rosters may need to be expanded or the rules for bringing players up from the minors may need to be modified, but this would accomplish the same thing without reducing the owners income.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
djhn579 said:
If you just want to allow players to rest, you can have an 82 game schedule, but each player can only play in 72 games? Rosters may need to be expanded or the rules for bringing players up from the minors may need to be modified, but this would accomplish the same thing without reducing the owners income.


OI! :banghead:

There is already about 8 teams worth of players who should have been career minor leaguers and now you want to add more. The idea is to improve the quality of the game to justify the ridiculous ticket prices. The owners have to give a little too, that being the loss of 5 home dates.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Mayor of MacAppolis said:
OI! :banghead:

There is already about 8 teams worth of players who should have been career minor leaguers and now you want to add more. The idea is to improve the quality of the game to justify the ridiculous ticket prices. The owners have to give a little too, that being the loss of 5 home dates.

The 8 teams worth of career minor leaguers is a matter of opinion. I disagree, but that is not what is important.

The reason for this lockout is because owners are losing too much money. Your idea takes even more money away from the owners (I'm assuming attendance is not going to improve a lot just because you cut 5 home games off the schedule), so the owners are not going to want to do it.

Most likely, there will be some sort of cost certainty and since your idea will reduce revenue, the players are not going to like it either since they will see their salaries reduced even further. Even if their is not cost certainty, revenues are decreased, so salaries will still need to come down. Either way the players lose.

At least with what I'm suggesting, some of those AHL players will get more of a chance to see the NHL and hopefully show what they can do and further their development.
 

Potatoe1

Registered User
Oct 5, 2004
764
0
Potatoe said:
I'm an "owners guy" but if the owners refuse to negotiate this proposal they have clearly lost their minds.

24% roll back, 75% Luxery Tax, and several other concessions.....

That is one hell of an offer.

Nice job players



My mistake, the offer isn't quite as nice considering the Luxury tax isn't 75%, but I still think the league should drop the hard cap position and negotiate based on the PA's offer. This deal with a stiffer cap would solve the majority of the NHL's problems IMO
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
At least with the rollback a team can claim in future contract negotiations when the season starts (this one or the next) is to compare players to the "new" salaries of other players. Depending on who they're trying to re-sign, this could translate into big savings.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Trottier said:
With you 100% on this one. Less = more. As in fresher players, better play during a six-month marathon exhibition, er, regular season.

Indeed. But would the players be prepared to forego a further 15% (12 games lost) on top of the 24% rollback. I doubt it, good idea though.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
thinkwild said:
The owners however would gladly give up that revenue, but the greedy players wont let them
The owners of course want that revenue too. The players like the concept of less games just not less money. The owners would be more open to a reduction in games if player salaries were adjusted accordingly although they probably are not all that interested at all.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Heimy said:
After reading all the back and forth on the past 7 pages, all I hope is the owners and PA are a lot less intractable than some here.

I see some criticism of small market teams. But those teams didn't just show up and join on a lark. They were invited to join and PAID for the privilege. And as members in a league, shouldn't they expect (if not demand) the rules work equally for ALL it's members? It seems like some believe allowing "free markets" to determine the league's destiny is the way to go. They view the teams as individual businesses. I'd like them to view a LEAGUE differently. Consider taking the view that a league is designed and intended to allow competition using common rules developed to bring out the best in sports rather than to give an unfair advantage to the wealthiest teams. Afterall, why should any team that is considered to be an equal member of a league get any advantage? Why should any team be placed at a disadvantage? If you aren't playing on a level playing field then what's the point of joining?

Providing for cost certainty for the NHL isn't some horrible idea. Done reasonably, it won't lessen the quality of the game or enhance the risk of losing the best players to other leagues. It also may not guarantee profitability to each and every owner. But it should guarantee that no members lose money season in, season out, due to a handful of wealthy, if short-sighted members.

Unfortunately, the bigger picture is less attractive to talk about that the smaller tidbits; the points of contention that make up a fairly small amount of the overall picture, but are often discussed as though they comprise vital elements to a reasonable solution. Interesting for debate but not something that will provide a meaningful insight into the problem.

There are posts we can learn from, gain a bit more knowledge. That helps of course, but there won't be any revelations in it.

"THE" issue is making the NHL healthy for many years to come. We all want this, of course. But too many of the good intentions get bogged down in mis-information, lack of information, assumptive reasoning based on that lack of info/knowledge, dis-placed loyalty, unfamiliarity with the actual economic situation pertaining to the league, etc, etc.

I do agree with what you said. For the denizens of this board, a broad idea isn't what they're looking for (for the most part at least). Personally, I'm just happy that someone else brought up the topic in this manner. Rare, to be sure.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
Trottier said:
As much as it does in the NHL. Which means sometimes. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. In the spirit of fairness, I'm sure you inadvertently omitted mention of the Anaheim Angels ('02) and the Florida Marlins ('03), two lower-to mid payroll teams (at the time) that won championships more recently than the big payroll Yankees.

Spending more money shouldn't guarantee success. And it never has. Which makes the argument specious.
Now look, the marlins are moving and the Angels have the 3rd highest payroll in baseball 2 years later, just so they could compete.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
I love the people who say the owners just have to control themselves. Well, if a player signs for under market value, the union cries collusion.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
vanlady said:
If you think high payroll is a guarentee of success I suggest you read this.

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/10-31-04cba.htm

Yes, that backs it up quite nicely. High payroll teams make the playoffs much more often, and go further than low payroll teams.

"The top seven teams in the [playoff appearances] rankings were among the top ten in average payroll. Team number eight -- Pittsburgh -- spent the first three years of the previous CBA as a top ten payroll team, ranking fourth, sixth and second."

LOL. You thought you were disproving it?
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Think medically.

What is more prudent and more practical to treat, the symptoms or the disease?

Treat the symptoms, in most cases there is little to prevent the symptoms from returning. Treat the disease, you eliminate the root of the problem and prevent the symptoms from returning.

Given every factor involved in this issue (the few we know and the many that we don't), this analogy doesn't speak to the truth of the matter. Was never meant to.

It's only to give some perspective to the rhetoric pandered about, no matter which side you happen to believe in.
 
Last edited:

Whakahere

Registered User
Jan 27, 2004
1,817
52
Germany
Once again it shows that the NHLPA doesn´t give a crap about small market clubs.

RFA will now become easier to gt for clubs with money. Say a small market club is at 39 million. big market clubs can take their free agents for LESS. They can do this by offering the player enough money so the small market club has to pay tax (which the big market can afford). in turn they do not lose so many 1st round picks.

the rich get richer while the poor just get poorer.

If there is going to be a tax system then it needs to be alot harder on the big spenders. 20 cents on the dollar is just a joke. Poor effort NHLPA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->