According to JR - players guaranteed cost certainty

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Brent Burns Beard, Jan 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    146
    didnt the owners offer to take the players model if they "guaranteed" it ?



    "Roenick said he still can't believe the NHL owners didn't accept the players' last offer.
    He confirmed the association offered a deal that would give the owners their "cost certainty."

    'GUARANTEED' OFFER

    "We guaranteed it. If it did not do what we said it would do and put a drag down on salaries after three years, we would go to their system and accept a salary cap," said Roenick. "Something that's equal for both sides. "

    http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2005/01/29/913786-sun.html
     
  2. That was the rumor I heard about a week ago but I didn't believe it. There must have been a catch somewhere because on its face, it looks like an amazing deal for the owners. I heard something about Bettman wanting the players to agree to waive their right to sue for collusion and the players denied that request. Either that or I think there are more than a few owners who think they have the union right where they want them and are going for the kill. Maybe the players aren't as insane as I thought. I might have to side with them if that actually was the deal offered and the NHL rejected it.
     
  3. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,332
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    The thing to remember is the players can collude. All they have to do is hold down the salaries for a few years by maintainung the over blown status quo. They would have to guarantee it for a lot longer than 3 years. Would Goodenow agree to hold salaries down for 10 years?
     
  4. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    146
    easily overcome though. the proposal was for only 6 years. if things get out of hand in the 2nd 3 years, the owner will have their chance to get their cap.

    if they dont get out of control in the 2nd 3 years, then its been guaranteed and succesful.

    dr
     
  5. wazee

    wazee Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    JR is always interesting. He doesn't give any details of the player's plan. And, as always with these things, the devil is in the details...
     
  6. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    Gotta love it. Looks like the players have answered the owners BS with some of their own :lol
     
  7. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,332
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    But was that Goodenow's offer? I doubt it. After 6 years we are back here again. Got any good links to the player's offer that contain high levels of detail?
     
  8. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    146
    im not sure what you are saying ..

    do you have links to say otherwise ? i provided a link to a significant comment from an influential player.

    read into it as little or as much as you choose.

    dr
     
  9. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,332
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    We know they agreed to some kind of change over based on some criteria (what they exactly are I'm not sure). It might change over after 3 or it might not change all, even if years 4-6 would have violated the trigger clause because the trigger clause only applies to years 1-3.

    The devil is in the detail.

    What are the triggers for the change over to a cap?

    Will the NHLPA oppose a cap in future CBA's even if this one is triggered?

    If years 4-6 violate the trigger from year 1-3 its not going to matter because the CBA ends.
     
  10. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I had heard this rumoured, but I didnt know it was part of last PA proposal, i thought it was something they were suggesting after it in one of the many leaks of concepts.

    But if its true, it is at least another creative idea. Cost certainty for 3 years, owners spend what they wish for 3 years. An interesting idea at least that surely seems to be making attempts at bridging the gap in good faith.
     
  11. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Regina
    It would be hard to police. Who's saying that the players purposely can't keep their contracts low for the first three years, or the owners purposely try to inflate the salaries by signing guys for more money.
     
  12. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    146
    if the players keep their salaries low, for whatever reason and by whatever control, who cares ? isnt that the only thing that matters ?

    if the owners run up their costs, you think the players will mind ?

    dr
     
  13. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Regina
    Either way, the players do it for the first three years, to keep their less restriciting system in place and get the long term benefits. The owners purposely inflate salaries, and get the cap. I can just see a huge finger pointing contest and I can see another lockout just like this one in 6 years.
     
  14. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    146
    maybe ...

    but how about bettman saying if the players guaranteed it they would negotiate off their model and now backing out of that ?

    dr
     
  15. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,332
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    How was it guaranteed? It was a "try it and see" offer not a guarantee. Were they going to give back salaries if it goes over or just accept a cap?
     
  16. Phanuthier*

    Phanuthier* Guest

    I think the problem lying in that proposal was that the last 3/6 year cap was a stipulation. It seemed as though in their proposal, their idea was that they would pull back for 3 years and say "ok, see, this is working. We don't need a cap." Then afte those 3 years of falsy proving their system works, salaries would be on the rise again and, in short, payback will be a ***** for the owners.

    Otherwise, why not just take a cap for entirety of the CBA?
     
  17. Vast Ant Dioi

    Vast Ant Dioi Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    We've been over this! God
    Location:
    Xunantunich
    Home Page:
    I think a system where it could switch back and forth between a hard cap and a soft cap could work. If the system is running under a soft cap but salaries exceed a certain % of revenues for, let's say, two years straight, then a cap is triggered for the next X years (probably 3-5) until the salaries correct themselves. This cap could be applied to the league, or to each team; conceivably you could have a couple teams hard capped and all the rest under soft caps...or something like that.
     
  18. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,332
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    If the players are prepared to back their system to guarantee cost certainty, why don't they accept the NHLs offer and then negotiate the specifics. They believe their system will earn the same per player as the NHLs system, so what is the major problem?
     
  19. Steve L*

    Steve L* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southampton, England
    Home Page:
    Exactly, their strategy would be to keep salaries level for 3 years, after that they would bring out the strategic holdouts etc to drive them back up leading to the same situation we are in now.

    Its a very devious plan and sounds good until you realise how low Goodenow is and how it would be exploited.
     
  20. I think this seems to be the sticking point with the players even considering anything the league is offering:
    The league is so vague in what their specifics are that I don't think the players would trust them nor should they. Like they guarantee that all teams would be able to get under the cap level...only until recently was it rumored that it will be due to a dispersal draft to accomplish that. If they owners started talking real revenue sharing (like 40% of gate revenues), then you'd see some better discussions from both sides.
     
  21. barnburner

    barnburner Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's just "spin".
    The players want to play the shell game, and propose an attractively disguised offer that effectively preserves the ability to either keep the bloated contracts they now have, or, leaves openings to enable them to return to them in a few years.
    Ask youself this - if the players proposal actually did accomplish the same thing as a cap - why are they still deadset against a cap?
     
  22. neelynugs

    neelynugs Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    31,528
    Likes Received:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Vote Quimby! (and California)
    exactly...

    by the way, yzerman was just quoted on TSN:

    "The philosophies haven't changed and there's no compromise in sight. I'd hoped at the last moment the owners would move off the salary cap, but they're not going to."

    hmm, so they were waiting for the owners to crack, were they? sounds like the players' bluff has been called :dunno:
     
  23. Stoneburg

    Stoneburg Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Fishing
    If this is true, how they decide if the salaries are still low? It may seem obvious, but one could argue over the figures, each side presentling it's own stats to "prove" they are right. Devil in the details is right.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"