BREAKING...TSN: NHL has rejected the NHLPA's 49M proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

kold

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
156
0
Edmonton
man, amazing how many people all of a sudden just jump on the NHLPA bandwagon to get a 24-28 game season. 6 million compared to 42.5 million is a lot and if the NHL doesnt get the right deal done, we may be missing a lot more in the future than the 75% of the season we have already missed.
 

turnbuckle*

Guest
Jason MacIsaac said:
It isn't 6.5 million dollars. It is 6.5 times 30 team. 195 million is much worse then 6.5 as people say.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is to consider that it's , what, a difference of $25,000 per player? $25,000 may seem like a large amouint to the average Joe, but for someone making $2 million, it's a silly amount to haggle over, half a week's salary.
 

Takeo

Registered User
Jul 9, 2003
20,151
0
Visit site
Hopefully, the NHL will sit on their proposal. $42.5M is a solid number. If the NHLPA wants hockey, they'll take it. If they want to destroy the game, they'll decline. Leave it up to them. They folded once. If they know any better, they'll fold again.

If not, good riddance.
 

AWSAA

.............
Sep 8, 2003
3,656
1,353
Players should look for something like:

1st year: 42.5 Million Dollar Cap
2nd: " "
3rd 43.5 Million
4th 44.5 Million
5th 45.5 Million
6th " "
 

Crows*

Guest
My guess is the PA will propose a 45 million dollar cap in the early morning hours. There will be a cone of silence and an announcement will be made at his press conference. Good or bad.
 

Foppa

Future Norris Winner
Feb 27, 2002
4,991
1
Kansas City, USA
Zednik said:
Well, I don't see how Colorado could stay under 42.5 M$....

They are already under it...$41 million with the rollback. Only four teams would be over that mark and the Avs are not one of them.

From Sportsnet:

Regarding the NHL's "final offer," the big-spending clubs would be the most affected.

Counting the rollback of 24 per cent, four teams are currently over the $42.5-million figure and that's before signing any free agents. Detroit ($43.38 million), New Jersey ($46.32 million), Philadelphia ($50 million) and Toronto ($46.6 million) would be over. Dallas ($40.77 million) and Colorado ($40.27 million) would be on the bubble without signing anyone else.


Keep in mind that Forsberg is not under contract and its not hard to see how the Avs' payroll suddenly looks a lot more reasonable. Plus, unlike some of these teams, the Avs payroll includes a full roster of 25 players.
 

Titanium

Registered User
Oct 20, 2003
621
0
Nottinghamshire, Eng
Visit site
canucksfan said:
I have a gut feeling the players will crack and they will agree on the league's proposal but I'm probabaly wrong.

That's the big hope!

Still, won't it be funny in a few years when we're cursing the cap because we just can't add that one vital player that might get our team to the Cup! :D :lol
 

handtrick

Registered User
Sep 18, 2004
3,217
13
Chattanooga, TN
ResidentAlien said:
Buttman was an idiot for playing this "final offer" crap with 18 hours left until "THE" deadline. What did he expect the NHLPA to say, "Yes sir, your Majesty, we'll be glad to take your Final Offer and not submit a counter offer of our own"?
What a rube move. He will have to eat crow now, as fans will, in no way, take getting this close now without coming away with a deal.
Hope Gary likes his blackbird pie....


way to plagiarize my post......glad you liked it :madfire: :D
 
Last edited:

Munchausen

Guest
Zednik said:
The letters are a big joke :lol:

True. They should have sent a singing messenger. And make it rhyme Gary for Christ's sake, where's your poetic side!
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,127
Time to get creative to bridge that gap.

  • 42.5 M cap with two exceptions per team over the 6 year term to go 5% over at 150% taxation rate; 25 M salary floor
  • 42.5 M cap in the first two years, 45 million in years 3 and 4, 47 million in years 5 and 6; increase luxury tax rates accordingly; no salary floor
  • Soft cap at 40 M; hard cap at 50 M; luxury tax at 200% between 40 and 50 M; no salary floor
I don't know. Am I way off base here with these suggestions?
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
Cloned said:
Time to get creative to bridge that gap.

  • 42.5 M cap with two exceptions per team over the 6 year term to go 5% over at 150% taxation rate; 25 M salary floor
  • 42.5 M cap in the first two years, 45 million in years 3 and 4, 47 million in years 5 and 6; increase luxury tax rates accordingly; no salary floor
  • Soft cap at 40 M; hard cap at 50 M; luxury tax at 200% between 40 and 50 M; no salary floor
I don't know. Am I way off base here with these suggestions?
I don't think it would go up from 42.5 to 47. I say if anything it would go down from 47 to 42.5 over the years
 

johnny cool

Registered User
Feb 19, 2004
1,553
0
Jack Black said:
Buttman????
i'm no comedian, but it may have been a clever play on words to illustrate the poster's opinion of Gary Bettman.

This is just my opinion, however. :shakehead
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
If your going to have a cap then you have to have a floor, otherwise it doesn't work and does nobody any good.

How does it level the playing field when Detroit's payroll is $42M and Nashvilles is $12M?
 

Mediator88

Registered User
Oct 27, 2003
29
0
Bethlehem, PA
Visit site
19nazzy said:
I don't think it would go up from 42.5 to 47. I say if anything it would go down from 47 to 42.5 over the years

It's the NHL's responsibility to market themselves so that revenues INCREASE year to year. Building an increase in the cap over a 6 year period (by graduating it whichever way those with the financial numbers feel best) is a legitimate compromise.

Dropping the cap over the years is unrealistic and, if I was a player, unacceptable. Graduating it from 42.5 mil up to 46 or 47 mil over the course of 6 years is a much more acceptable offer. It forces the NHL to do a better job marketing itself as well.

Brian
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,935
Halifax, NS
Titanium said:
Except most teams, for the last time, WON'T GO NEAR THE CAP LIMIT!!!

But for those who say it isn't much, 49m is around 15% more than 42.5! FIFTEEN PERCENT IS A LOT MORE!
The thing is, thewy have to account for the worst possible situation which is 30 teams at 49 million.
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,127
Mediator88 said:
It's the NHL's responsibility to market themselves so that revenues INCREASE year to year. Building an increase in the cap over a 6 year period (by graduating it whichever way those with the financial numbers feel best) is a legitimate compromise.

Dropping the cap over the years is unrealistic and, if I was a player, unacceptable. Graduating it from 42.5 mil up to 46 or 47 mil over the course of 6 years is a much more acceptable offer. It forces the NHL to do a better job marketing itself as well.

Brian
These are my thoughts as well. I think a graduated CBA is the best way to go, actually. It gives the players the promise of an increasing market but maintains a relative level of cost control for the owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->