640 Toronto reporting NHLPA proposal

  • Thread starter Vomiting Kermit*
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
York16 said:
A poster at another forum I frequent heard this (he said he would fix any errors in his post if need be)...

- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
- Salary floor of $31 million
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
- No salary rollback
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
- Qualifying offers @ 75%
- Baseball-style arbitration


I see no way of this proposal being accepted if it is a legit proposal. A $38.5 million cap plus $2 million for benefits is a good deal, and would likely be accepted, had there not been a franchise player exemption. That turns the deal into a $38.5 million soft cap, with luxury tax revenue of only 50% over that amount unlimited with no hard cap (if you believe the rumors). You end up with teams still icing $50+ million rosters, which is a ways from the $35 million rosters the NHL seems to prefer.

The salary rollback off the table makes it somewhat difficult to get all the teams under the cap, but there aren't many teams that would be over the $50 million as it is right now, because there are so many free agents. However, many teams have spent large sums on a small number of players, making it very difficult to sign the remaining players to fill out their roster.

The other aspects of the deal seem ok. The NHL already seemed ready to share 100% of playoff revenue, and I think the 60/40 split on gate receipts is a rollover from the previous CBA. The entry level contracts are another rollover from the previous CBA at $1.2 million plus bonuses. The baseball arbitration in a move in the right direction, as is the 75% qualifying offer, although those lose their significance with an UFA age of 27, or as young as 24 for players that enter the league when they are 18. You will only end up with 1-2 contracts for a player before they reach UFA status, so there is less of an issue about the inflation of a qualifying offer, and a player would only have one or two chances to go to arbitration.

I feel no more optimistic about this offer than anything else we've seen, as it has the built in NHLPA loopholes to manipulate the system. Bring on the replacement players.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
Rob Paxon said:
This is very workable for both sides... the numbers can go up or down a bit and the UFA age needs to be a bit higher, but what do you radically pro-owners guys expect?

The cap number isn't ridiculously high when you consider the revenue sharing.

Anyone trying to fudge the numbers so that the cap is $50 million is just being stubborn. Since when does every team have a player making over $10 million? If they did, it'd be basically dead salary... teams wouldn't be adding $10 million in player value to their roster, they'd be adding one player of substantially less value than they could get out of multiple players with the money if they were allowed to. If a team can afford the additional money for just one player, it isn't going to ruin the entire system and turn the rich teams into dynasties, nor will it dictate a rise in non-franchised slaries. It is just one player and does not represent a "loophole" by any means. On top of that, I'm sure most franchised players would end up getting $7 million or less. And on top of that, I'm sure any sort of final agreement would have many imits dealing with the exemption, not the least of which would be a cap on it.

I do like the idea someone said about giving some cap exemptions for players who have been with a team for a long period of time. In fact, it is the best non-traditional idea I've heard in conjunction with a cap.

The NHLPA isn't going to be offering anything better numbers-wise, but that isn't to say they wouldn't accept something lower in a counter-offer.

If this is indeed a real proposal, a deal is inevitable. If it isn't inevitable, it would spell doom and gloom as far as I'm concerned.

The big spending teams all would have a player making $10 million dollars a season, so that franchise player tag is really only for the big spenders. The only benefit of it is that there would be proposed revenue sharing from a tax on those franchise players, but if you only have 10 players with the tag in the league, and they are all making $10 million, you generate (10x$5M) $50 million in revenue to be split 30 different ways. That's $1.67 million per team, just enough to add a player of the average NHL salary. It's a start but not the answer.

I had brought out a proposal a long time ago that I called the homegrown exemption cap, and I still say it works. You'd have it so that players that have only played for your team or players with a certain amount of tenure (6+ years?) would be exempt from the cap. The cap would basically just count towards your traded for players and free agents. I don't like how it penalizes traded players as much, but I think the drag needs to be on the free agents, and to help prevent teams from gobbling up the top salary players in salary dumps (even though it helps the sellers more than the buyers usually). I'd settle for a free agent cap frankly.
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
no13matssundin said:
Is anyone else sick and tired of the PA's half-measure proposals that add up to absolutely nothing?
But I thought it was said on the first page of this thread that the proposal was most likely fiction, just like most other rumoured proposals that have been bantered about on this board. The PA cant really be accused of offering half-measure proposals. They havent offered anything in months.
 

shveik

Registered User
Jul 6, 2002
2,852
0
Visit site
Icey said:
So you think a team like Chicago who does not broadcast their home games (i.e. no TV revenue) should share in Toronto's or Dallas's TV revenue who do broadcast their home games and do a darn good job at it. You are rewarding the bad teams for doing nothing and penalizing the teams who are good at it.

Let me put it this way. How many fans are watching Leaf game to see the Leafs play, and how many to see a team other than the Leafs? Plus, the Leafs cannot split their roster and do an entertaining intra-squad game for the broadcast. There is another team on the ice, so that other team deserves a bit of that revenue, do not you think?

One modification can be made to this plan, that the 30% is split not equally among the teams, but proportinal to the gate revenue those teams contributed to locally. So if noone comes to the Chicago games in Toronto, the Hawks get nothing from either gate or local broadcast sharing.
 

GoBuckeyes9

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
42
0
Am I the only person who liked the idea in the PA's offer a while back...that teams could go over the cap by like 10% 3 of 6 years? Something like that. I always enjoy the trade deadline deals and I think it would be a interesting twist to the season. Only thing I would do is to make sure that each team is under the cap before the start of each following season that they went over or pay a heavy tax for gearing up for the cup run. Something along those lines...I liked the idea of that.


I think the UFA has to go up to like 28 or 8 years in to the league...which ever comes later.

Get rid of the franchise player exception. Or put heavy tax on it...something so it doesn't get much higher than 6million or so.

And I think from there you almost got yourself a deal.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
Icey said:
So you think a team like Chicago who does not broadcast their home games (i.e. no TV revenue) should share in Toronto's or Dallas's TV revenue who do broadcast their home games and do a darn good job at it. You are rewarding the bad teams for doing nothing and penalizing the teams who are good at it.
couldn't agree with you more -
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Rob Paxon said:
This is very workable for both sides... the numbers can go up or down a bit and the UFA age needs to be a bit higher, but what do you radically pro-owners guys expect?

The cap number isn't ridiculously high when you consider the revenue sharing.

Anyone trying to fudge the numbers so that the cap is $50 million is just being stubborn. Since when does every team have a player making over $10 million? If they did, it'd be basically dead salary... teams wouldn't be adding $10 million in player value to their roster, they'd be adding one player of substantially less value than they could get out of multiple players with the money if they were allowed to. If a team can afford the additional money for just one player, it isn't going to ruin the entire system and turn the rich teams into dynasties, nor will it dictate a rise in non-franchised slaries. It is just one player and does not represent a "loophole" by any means. On top of that, I'm sure most franchised players would end up getting $7 million or less. And on top of that, I'm sure any sort of final agreement would have many imits dealing with the exemption, not the least of which would be a cap on it.

I do like the idea someone said about giving some cap exemptions for players who have been with a team for a long period of time. In fact, it is the best non-traditional idea I've heard in conjunction with a cap.

The NHLPA isn't going to be offering anything better numbers-wise, but that isn't to say they wouldn't accept something lower in a counter-offer.

If this is indeed a real proposal, a deal is inevitable. If it isn't inevitable, it would spell doom and gloom as far as I'm concerned.

Careful Rob-- you're going to start sounding like a reasonable moderate and those aren't much welcomed in these here parts
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
mytor4 said:
this is not a $38 million dollar cap. read in-between the lines .38 +franchise=48to50million dollar cap. as i said the union has offered nothing with this perposal.
Just like the NHL has offered nothing with their crap proposals then right?
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04

Anaheim - Fedorov - $10 million
Atlanta - Kozlov - $3.5
Boston - Lapointe - $5.5
Buffalo - Satan - $4.75
Calgary - Iginla - $7.5
Carolina - Brind'amour - $5
Chicago - Daze - $3.2
Colorado - Forsberg - $11
Columbus - Cassels - $3.5
Dallas - Modano - $9
Detroit - Lidstrom - $10
Edmonton - Smyth - $3.45
Florida - Jokinen - $2
Los Angeles - Allison - $8
Minnesota - Gaborik - $2.9
Montreal - Theodore - $5.5
Nashville - York - $2
New Jersey - Stevens - $6.92
New York - Yashin - $8.4
New York - Jagr - $11
Ottawa - Alfredsson - $5.05
Philadelphia - LeClair - $9
Phoenix - Savage - $3.25
Pittsburgh - Lemieux - $5.25
San Jose - Damphousse - $4
St. Louis - Tkachuk - $10
Tampa - Khabibulin - $4.43
Toronto - Sundin - $9
Vancouver - Bertuzzi - $6.8
Washington - Kolzig - $6.25

Average is $5.85 million. And if anything salaries are going to drop.
 
Last edited:

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
mytor4 said:
this is not a $38 million dollar cap. read in-between the lines .38 +franchise=48to50million dollar cap. as i said the union has offered nothing with this perposal.

How many teams have $10-12 million players ???
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
John Flyers Fan said:
Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04

Anaheim - Fedorov - $10 million
Atlanta - Kozlov - $3.5
Boston - Lapointe - $5.5
Buffalo - Satan - $4.75
Calgary - Iginla - $7.5
Carolina - Brind'amour - $5
Chicago - Daze - $3.2
Colorado - Forsberg - $11
Columbus - Cassels - $3.5
Dallas - Modano - $9
Detroit - Lidstrom - $10
Edmonton - Smyth - $3.45
Florida - Jokinen - $2
Los Angeles - Allison - $8
Minnesota - Gaborik - $2.9
Nashville - York - $2
New Jersey - Stevens - $6.92
New York - Yashin - $8.4
New York - Jagr - $11
Ottawa - Alfredsson - $5.05
Philadelphia - LeClair - $9
Phoenix - Savage - $3.25
San Jose - Damphousse - $4
St. Louis - Tkachuk - $10
Tampa - Khabibulin - $4.43
Toronto - Sundin - $9
Vancouver - Bertuzzi - $6.8
Washington - Kolzig - $6.25

Average is $5.85 million. And if anything salaries are going to drop.
you're right - trevor linden has said the correction - ie - gm's waking up - had already started - before bettman decided he didn't want to play this year
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
John Flyers Fan said:
How many teams have $10-12 million players ???
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for getting the list of highest paid players for each team. Proves pro-player points.
 

Taranis_24

Registered User
Jan 6, 2004
681
0
Visit site
Am I the only one who sees this franchise exception tag as inflationary? When one teams franchise player claiming he should be paid commensorate to other teams franchise player. You know the agents and union will be sure to try to exploit it.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
If thats proposed (which I doubt it will since it came from he who can not be named and a radio station) it's a workable deal. Of course some things will have to be negotiated like a franchise player cap and the floor/ceiling but the figures would be workable. I dont think it's half as bad as some are making it out to be.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Taranis_24 said:
Am I the only one who sees this franchise exception tag as inflationary? When one teams franchise player claiming he should be paid commensorate to other teams franchise player. You know the agents and union will be sure to try to exploit it.

if it's optional for teams to have one, i don't think it's inflationary.

i like this deal, but the owners won't negotiate. i think it could work, but impasse is going to be declared no matter what.
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
19nazzy said:
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for getting the list of highest paid players for each team. Proves pro-player points.
How does it prove pro-player points with respect to a likely bs rumour? It may debunk some peoples numbers, but it doesnt prove anything.

And at this point, how can anyone say they are pro either side? I can see how someone could be anti- owner, NHL, players or PA, but I cant understand how anyone can be pro either side.
 

kingsfan

President of the Todd McLellan fan club by default
Mar 18, 2002
13,384
1,032
Manitoba, Canada
John Flyers Fan said:
Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04

Anaheim - Fedorov - $10 million
Atlanta - Kozlov - $3.5
Boston - Lapointe - $5.5
Buffalo - Satan - $4.75
Calgary - Iginla - $7.5
Carolina - Brind'amour - $5
Chicago - Daze - $3.2
Colorado - Forsberg - $11
Columbus - Cassels - $3.5
Dallas - Modano - $9
Detroit - Lidstrom - $10
Edmonton - Smyth - $3.45
Florida - Jokinen - $2
Los Angeles - Allison - $8
Minnesota - Gaborik - $2.9
Nashville - York - $2
New Jersey - Stevens - $6.92
New York - Yashin - $8.4
New York - Jagr - $11
Ottawa - Alfredsson - $5.05
Philadelphia - LeClair - $9
Phoenix - Savage - $3.25
San Jose - Damphousse - $4
St. Louis - Tkachuk - $10
Tampa - Khabibulin - $4.43
Toronto - Sundin - $9
Vancouver - Bertuzzi - $6.8
Washington - Kolzig - $6.25

Average is $5.85 million. And if anything salaries are going to drop.

A) At least get highest paid guys right. If teams are going use the franschise player exemptions to aviod the cap, they'll logically use it on the highest paid guy. I didn;t bother to check every team, since I dodn;t even know who's under contract anymore, but I just checked a few guys. Luongo for Florida and Sullivan for Nashville are higher than the players you listed for those teams, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on other teams.

B) Salaries may drop on average, but this isn't about the foot soldier players. This is about the 'franchise' players. Exempting them from the payroll will basically allow them to hold the team hostage as they have no limit. Unless there is a deadline to declare who is the franschise player (say the start of the season), what is to stop a elite player from holding out for a big deal? And it's not like a long hold out will break a lot of these elite players. Just ask Peca and Khabibulin. The numbers you listed here for teams like Atlanta, Boston, Columbus, and Tampa Bay will go up likely sustancially as Kovalchuk, Thornton, Nash and St. Louis get new deals. My figuring is that an average of $7 million is more likely to be the minimum.
 

McDonald19

Registered User
Sep 9, 2003
22,957
3,824
California
Rob Paxon said:
And this is seemingly alright with so many of you... if the league doesn't like anything in the deal it is OK for them to reject it. How close is this deal to what the league wanted rather than what the NHLPA did? The union is giving here, and at some point the league is going to have to.

Well maybe they will negotiate off of the proposal.

UFA age dropped to 30...then players say 28 then owners say 29....there you go new UFA age is 29.

Owners say Cap floor at 20 million players want 30 million owners say ok 25 million.

Franchise player exception thing the owners are never going to agree to in my opinion though.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
McDonald19 said:
Well maybe they will negotiate off of the proposal.

UFA age dropped to 30...then players say 28 then owners say 29....there you go new UFA age is 29.

Owners say Cap floor at 20 million players want 30 million owners say ok 25 million.

Franchise player exception thing the owners are never going to agree to in my opinion though.

Players say 49, owners say 42.5.... there you go, salary cap is 45.

Oh wait... nevermind.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,429
29,169
St. OILbert, AB
McDonald19 said:
Well maybe they will negotiate off of the proposal.

UFA age dropped to 30...then players say 28 then owners say 29....there you go new UFA age is 29.

Owners say Cap floor at 20 million players want 30 million owners say ok 25 million.

Franchise player exception thing the owners are never going to agree to in my opinion though.

so simple yet so complicated....

I love everyhting about this (ahem) 'proposed" deal esxcept the franchise player tag
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->