$45-million salary cap agreed on, Saturday NHL will uncancel season- THN
- Thread starter Lou is God
- Start date
- Status
McDonald19
Registered User
This is some new Info. I think.
from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...y?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=2&cset=true
Late Friday, the Hockey News reported that a deal was done in principle, although the NHL Players' Assn. denied the report. A source familiar with the negotiations said there was "a lot of work to be done."
...
Linden and Gartner met secretly with Bettman on Thursday, a union source said, where they discussed ways to reach a deal.
That led to a proposal for a salary cap of $45 million to $46 million, plus a luxury tax of 40 cents on every dollar of salary above $40 million, to encourage teams to curb spending.
The salary cap represents a compromise between the $49 million offered by the players earlier in the week and the $42.5 million sought by owners. The cap would drop to $42 million if more than eight teams' payrolls reach $46 million in one season.
The terms can be "tweaked" but not significantly altered, the source said, adding: "They have a framework that they are prepared to go with."
Bob Goodenow, the union's executive director, was not expected to take part in the talks. Well-placed sources said Goodenow told the union's executive committee that he could not recommend such a deal, or any deal like it, and that if the committee wanted to make that deal, it would have to do so on it own.
The players' executive committee — Daniel Alfredsson, Bob Boughner, Vincent Damphousse, Bill Guerin, Arturs Irbe and Trent Klatt — decided to do just that.
"Something needed to be done," said Steve Rucchin, the Mighty Ducks' union representative, who was not involved in the committee's decision. "I guess there wasn't total closure even after the season was canceled. Things were happening. I'm not surprised at all."
Sources said training camps could be open by Feb. 28, with a 28-game season to begin about a week later.
from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...y?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=2&cset=true
Late Friday, the Hockey News reported that a deal was done in principle, although the NHL Players' Assn. denied the report. A source familiar with the negotiations said there was "a lot of work to be done."
...
Linden and Gartner met secretly with Bettman on Thursday, a union source said, where they discussed ways to reach a deal.
That led to a proposal for a salary cap of $45 million to $46 million, plus a luxury tax of 40 cents on every dollar of salary above $40 million, to encourage teams to curb spending.
The salary cap represents a compromise between the $49 million offered by the players earlier in the week and the $42.5 million sought by owners. The cap would drop to $42 million if more than eight teams' payrolls reach $46 million in one season.
The terms can be "tweaked" but not significantly altered, the source said, adding: "They have a framework that they are prepared to go with."
Bob Goodenow, the union's executive director, was not expected to take part in the talks. Well-placed sources said Goodenow told the union's executive committee that he could not recommend such a deal, or any deal like it, and that if the committee wanted to make that deal, it would have to do so on it own.
The players' executive committee — Daniel Alfredsson, Bob Boughner, Vincent Damphousse, Bill Guerin, Arturs Irbe and Trent Klatt — decided to do just that.
"Something needed to be done," said Steve Rucchin, the Mighty Ducks' union representative, who was not involved in the committee's decision. "I guess there wasn't total closure even after the season was canceled. Things were happening. I'm not surprised at all."
Sources said training camps could be open by Feb. 28, with a 28-game season to begin about a week later.
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
McDonald19 said:
If this part is true, the union is completely broken. When you basically gag and tie up in a closet your negotiator and do it yourself, you have a major problem going on.
Lou is God
Registered User
I'm sure they are only respectfully reacting to the "denials" by both the NHL and NHLPA, I wouldn't read anything into that.Battousai said:
McDonald19
Registered User
Jaded-Fan said:
yeah...here is some more on that from the other LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nhlcol19feb19,1,209234.column?coll=la-headlines-sports
The NHLPA's executive committee, augmented by the considerable presence of Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, gathered in New York on Friday to come up with a final proposal to play hockey this season.
Goodenow was not among them, sources said, because he was unhappy with the maneuvering that went on behind his back to produce a deal he considers too favorable to the NHL.
Dismayed by his failure to inform them about key decisions — they woke up Tuesday and were stunned to learn he had committed them to a salary cap — and shaken when his assurances that owners would cave in did not materialize, players knew if they were going to get a deal, Goodenow and Bettman couldn't be in the same room.
It took the intervention of Gretzky, the managing partner of the Phoenix Coyotes and dutiful supporter of the NHL's "cost certainty" policy, and Lemieux, who occupies a unique position as both a player for and owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, to convince Bettman that players were still willing to compromise and that a short season is worth playing. But it's largely because of the efforts of Trevor Linden that there is even faint hope of reviving the season.
Linden, the NHLPA's president, accomplished what Goodenow was too arrogant to try.
...
Goodenow undercut his players' faith in him. After repeatedly telling them they should never accept a salary cap, he abruptly agreed to a cap far too late in the process to allow room for negotiation. He was silent between his last sarcastic letter to Bettman on Tuesday night and the 11 a.m. EST Wednesday deadline Bettman had set for a response, turning the negotiations into a personal battle.
...
"The general feeling is an expectation that a deal will be done by Sunday," a source close to the situation said.
...
They also want a season because they fear that without one, longtime flagship network ESPN will exercise its April 15 option to drop NHL telecasts.
Once upon a time, ESPN needed the NHL more than the NHL needed ESPN. The balance has shifted. The NHL cannot lose ESPN.
Personally speaking, I cannot wait untill Saskin and Daly get together five years from now and share the whole behind the scenes of this story in a tell-all book written together.
Captain Conservative
Registered User
Winston Wolf
Registered User
I doubt it. "Deal still a longshot" doesn't exactly have me feeling so optimistic anymore.Lou is God said:
kenabnrmal
Registered User
X8oD said:
Oh please, I'm more pro-owner than anything. But, if you think the pro-player side has been anymore attacking, or rode horses any higher than the pro-owner side, you're either delusional or biased as heck. There are few pro-owner's who can back up their argument well just as there are few pro-player's who do it. Neither side is any more righteous than the other. Both sides have plenty of individuals who have made big asses out of themselves.
Mess
Global Moderator
Lots of steps still needed to get a new CBA in place ..flyers guy said:I doubt it. "Deal still a longshot" doesn't exactly have me feeling so optimistic anymore.
I think that the Cap figure might be the number that both sides are prepared to agree upon .. but you still have arbitration and UFA age and Revenue Sharing ..
Then when you have a agreed deal both sides take it bake for a vote .. 8 NHL owners NOT against or 375 players saying YES is what it takes .. That is unknown how that will turn out ..
Lots of hurdles still
hockeyfan125
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2004
- 20,017
- 0
What they should do is sign a deal in principle, then as teams are getting ready, work out all the other issues.The Messenger said:
Tricolore#20
PK PK PK
The Messenger said:
I don't doubt it, but why then was there some optimism on Tuesday night, when Goodenow made the 49 million proposal, fairly late in the afternoon? Surely, if they were to take votes and such, there would be no time to make the 11 AM deadline.
Winston Wolf
Registered User
That was merely blind optimism spread across the hockey world by people who didn't understand how far apart they really were.Tricolore#20 said:
I thought it looked better tonight, but now I'm not so sure.
Toronto Star has a nice spin:
"Dallas Stars owner Tom Hicks confirmed last night that the NHL and the NHL Players' Association were well on their way to making a deal that will almost certainly save this season and the playoffs.
"The focus is on next year," Hicks said. "But if they can get something done, we'll play this year."
According to a number of sources and reports last night, the talks that were dead when the season was cancelled Wednesday have taken on a new life. Late Thursday night, the league got in touch with the players' association and requested a meeting for today in New York, where it's expected the two sides will come to an agreement.
There was another report that the deal would start at $42.5 million and rise by $1 million each year to $47.5 million in the 2009-10 season, which would make the average $45 million over the life of the deal. Another possible concept would be that the salary cap would be at $45 million, but would go back to $42.5 million if eight teams got to the $45 million mark.
The deal would factor in the 24 per cent salary rollback on all existing contracts that was part of the players' Dec. 9 proposal."
Link
"Dallas Stars owner Tom Hicks confirmed last night that the NHL and the NHL Players' Association were well on their way to making a deal that will almost certainly save this season and the playoffs.
"The focus is on next year," Hicks said. "But if they can get something done, we'll play this year."
According to a number of sources and reports last night, the talks that were dead when the season was cancelled Wednesday have taken on a new life. Late Thursday night, the league got in touch with the players' association and requested a meeting for today in New York, where it's expected the two sides will come to an agreement.
There was another report that the deal would start at $42.5 million and rise by $1 million each year to $47.5 million in the 2009-10 season, which would make the average $45 million over the life of the deal. Another possible concept would be that the salary cap would be at $45 million, but would go back to $42.5 million if eight teams got to the $45 million mark.
The deal would factor in the 24 per cent salary rollback on all existing contracts that was part of the players' Dec. 9 proposal."
Link
SuperNintendoChalmrs
Registered User
So if Bettman says that 42.5 was stretching it, and several owners would have turned that down.....why would they now go with 45?
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
Lou is God said:
Whoa, slow down a bit. You don't just walk into a prestigious position like assistant manager. That requires years of dedication on the job.
Greeter??? Yeah, maybe...
X8oD said:
People may maybe need an history lesson but when the NFL played with replacement players it wasn't because they cared about the fans but because they want to honored the TV Contract they had back then.
NFL Stadium were almost empty but the owners didn't care as long as the TV guys were happy to show football on TV.
ESPN, even if they are good or bad with hockey will always more influence than the fans.
Sad but true.
Just imagine 2 of the biggest sponsors Gillet & Anheuser (Budweiser) calling their sponsorship OFF !!! That would be a major STEP BACK for the league & the NHL is afraid of that.
It's all about money from BOTH SIDES !!! Pro-Owners or Pro-PA that didn't acknowledge that is BLIND !
StickShift
In a pickle 🥒
p.l.f.
use the force
SuperNintendoChalmrs
Registered User
krt88
Registered User
How does this make the NHL better?
More than half the teams are struggling with their current payrolls and this deal is well above their current payrolls.
Now, I understand that this deal will prevent the Rangers, red Wings, Flyers and others from driving up free agent contracts by massively overpaying players but serious, how does this help Calgary, Edmonton, Buffalo, etc.
These clubs will still struggle to meet payroll.
These clubs will still have to charge $40 a ticket.
I just don't understand this deal. Maybe I'll get it when some details come out but if I owned a small market team, I'd reject this. The cap is too high compared to the league revenues.
More than half the teams are struggling with their current payrolls and this deal is well above their current payrolls.
Now, I understand that this deal will prevent the Rangers, red Wings, Flyers and others from driving up free agent contracts by massively overpaying players but serious, how does this help Calgary, Edmonton, Buffalo, etc.
These clubs will still struggle to meet payroll.
These clubs will still have to charge $40 a ticket.
I just don't understand this deal. Maybe I'll get it when some details come out but if I owned a small market team, I'd reject this. The cap is too high compared to the league revenues.
krt88 said:
Like it's been so often said. This is a problem THE OWNERS DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO INTO !!!!
The cap will only close the disparities between the 1st payroll & 30th payrolls but it won't solve the SMALL REVENUES some franchise is having in their respective markets.
I don't care that the owners said they will share enough revenue that every team will spend on players but they REALLY NEVER make a serious plan except telling it to fans for PUBLIC RELATIONS reasons.
Revenue sharing is the major part why the NFL is so succesfull but still the fans still look the HARD CAP as the SOLE REASON why the NFL is so loved by their fans.
p.l.f.
use the force
i remember something about bettwoman suggesting there would be rule changes or maybe a bigger blueline etc if this season was to be saved
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Sheepshead Bay Stakes (Gr. 2) BELMONT (AQUEDUCT) RACE 3Wagers: 1Staked: $134.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
