Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

[tantalum]

The problem I see is still no real checks on salary escalation. It's all well and good to say if the GMs control themselves. But quite frankly it can be a deal that everyone agrees is a decent deal and then that player takes it easy and underperforms that causes the problem. IT only takes one or two deals to start serious spirals again. And the NHLPA knows that under this proposal that is exactly the case. Which is why they dressed it up with the 24% number instead of properly addressing those issues.

I also don't see in the arbitration process a choice between two numbers. Other than very limited increased powers to the team it remains the same.

 

[txpd]

Most of the cases you site are cases of out of control arbitration, this has been taken care of, there is no more only one offer on the table.

St Louis is going to be subject to arbitration and all arbitration contracts will be based on the rolled back amount. Remember the owners now have the right to take hold outs to arbitration. Oh and remember group III contracts are never used as a base for arbitration.

I suggest the league put in huge measures for repeat offenders in the index the union supports. This would put a huge stumbling block in the way of large market teams to consistantly over spend, without penalizing teams that have to go over once due to the injury bug.

which cases are out of control arbitration? conroy and cullimore were ufa's that changed teams.

how do you figure that st louis is going to be subject to arbitration?? he could have had arbitration and he passed on it. there will be no arbitration between now and st louis's next contract signing. i realize that group III contracts are not used as a basis for arbitration, but none of these cases mentioned are arbitration situations.

 

[ceber]

While that may be true - it also places the power back into the hands of the owners, by giving them immediate relief of their cash flow deficit. Hopefully, they'll have learned something and they won't have to have a "Law" to enforce something that they should damn well be able to do on their own - STOP OVERSPENDING. I just don't believe that they'll be making the same mistakes they've been making. If they're truly that stupid, then they deserve to lose their shirts.

One of the problems here is that the financial landscape is so varied. What's overspending for one team may not be overspending at all for another team.

I have no idea how to solve that issue without either a hard cap, which doesn't appeal to me, or a very stiff luxury tax, which doesn't seem to appeal to either the players or the league. It's a sticky problem, for sure.

The mid and small market teams can try be as fiscally responsible as they want to be, but when a big market team decides it wants to go after some plapers, those small market teams will still have to struggle with trying to keep a budget and at the same time maintain a competitive team and keep the fans happy. In some cases a smaller market team is still going to overspend, hoping to make it up later somehow, and the problem continues. It's easy to say they should just give up and lose out on the player, but that's only going to work for so long until the fan base starts to erode, and with a gate-driven league that's a major problem.

 

[vanlady]

which cases are out of control arbitration? conroy and cullimore were ufa's that changed teams.

how do you figure that st louis is going to be subject to arbitration?? he could have had arbitration and he passed on it. there will be no arbitration between now and st louis's next contract signing. i realize that group III contracts are not used as a basis for arbitration, but none of these cases mentioned are arbitration situations.

Conroy and Draper were classic examples of using arbitrators decisions to boost there value. They may have been UFA's but they used arbitrated decisions to drive up there value in contract negotiations.

Add to that Drapers contract is not that far out of line he went from 1.47 to 2.8 under the new system 2.13 million. Considering he was on the World Cup team and has what 3 Stanley Cup rings, not bad.

The owners can take St Louis to arbitration. Under the new rules will the NHLPA hold a new arbitration hearing before the beginning of the season?

 

[SENSible1*]

One of the problems here is that the financial landscape is so varied. What's overspending for one team may not be overspending at all for another team.

I have no idea how to solve that issue without either a hard cap, which doesn't appeal to me, or a very stiff luxury tax, which doesn't seem to appeal to either the players or the league. It's a sticky problem, for sure.

The mid and small market teams can try be as fiscally responsible as they want to be, but when a big market team decides it wants to go after some plapers, those small market teams will still have to struggle with trying to keep a budget and at the same time maintain a competitive team and keep the fans happy. In some cases a smaller market team is still going to overspend, hoping to make it up later somehow, and the problem continues. It's easy to say they should just give up and lose out on the player, but that's only going to work for so long until the fan base starts to erode, and with a gate-driven league that's a major problem.

And one that the pro-NHLPAers consistently ignore.

Cost certainty is the only solution in the best interest of all 30 franchises of the single business entity known as the NHL.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

And one that the pro-NHLPAers consistently ignore.

Cost certainty is the only solution in the best interest of all 30 franchises of the single business entity known as the NHL.

No. It is not in the best interest of 30 NHL franchises.
One reason why Detroit's franchise value is up about, oh, 3,500 percent in the last 25 years is because spending on players was part of Illitch's marketing technique.

Cost certainty, at this point is a red herring.
It's being used to gauge as much the owners can from the NHL players.

There will be no cost certainty.

 

[kerrly]

You know what I find funny, ex owners from this league see this proposal as a gift. Arthur Griffiths the ex owner of the Canucks has read the proposal and when interviewed on Global last night, said that the owners should negotiate higher rates in luxury tax but look at the offer as the gift it was intended to be.

I trust him more than a man who is trying to ensure himself a job at the end of the lockout.

One thought, pilots from Delta and Air Canada just took wage rollbacks in this range, they got a large award of shares in the company. What do players get for this rollback?

Yeah because Burke will say anything to keep his job. Come on, judging by your name you fairly familiar with Burke. When has Burke said anything that isn't the honest to god truth. Burke is not the type of guy who will say things to further himself. He's probably the most honest guy in sports and speaks unbiased, he gives credit wear credit is due. You may not think he's unbiased because of his viewpoints, but if I would believe anyone about the league's problems its him.

 

[Boilers*]

I heard that phoney line of BS in 94 too. Amazing how the league is not only still around but bigger than before. Funny people fail to mention the the revenues of the league have quadrupled since then but player salaries have only tripled. It amazes me how many people know 0 about the 94 lockout and are swallowing the NHL party line hook line and sinker, when they fed us the same line of BS back then.

Maybe you'd like to forget the fact that the players at that time said they'd never settle for a luxury tax of 20 %. Never. Hmm, memory slips a bit with time, eh?

 

[YellHockey*]

Maybe you'd like to forget the fact that the players at that time said they'd never settle for a luxury tax of 20 %. Never. Hmm, memory slips a bit with time, eh?

Did the owners get their luxury tax in 94?

No. The players didn't settle for a luxury tax.

 

[no13matssundin]

There will be no cost certainty.

You might be hfboard staff... but lemme tell ya:

you are DEAD wrong on that one. The cap is coming... its just a matter of whether the players want to work with the NHL in implementing one for the 04-05 season, or if they want it shoved down their throats through impasse in the 05-06 season.

Either way, there will be cost certainty. There will be a cap.

and if you think otherwise, youve been attending PA meetings.

 

[jcpenny]

One of the problems here is that the financial landscape is so varied. What's overspending for one team may not be overspending at all for another team.

I have no idea how to solve that issue without either a hard cap, which doesn't appeal to me, or a very stiff luxury tax, which doesn't seem to appeal to either the players or the league. It's a sticky problem, for sure.

The mid and small market teams can try be as fiscally responsible as they want to be, but when a big market team decides it wants to go after some plapers, those small market teams will still have to struggle with trying to keep a budget and at the same time maintain a competitive team and keep the fans happy. In some cases a smaller market team is still going to overspend, hoping to make it up later somehow, and the problem continues. It's easy to say they should just give up and lose out on the player, but that's only going to work for so long until the fan base starts to erode, and with a gate-driven league that's a major problem.

Bright comment, Ive been thinking that all along. Some teams just have more money than others, when they sign players they dont think about what the other Teams think about it. There was no way to prevent the contracts to get out of hand under the old CBA. Easy to say for the players that its the owners fault, its economy! It was bound to happen sooner or later but it happened too fast. Thats why they need more than just a 24% rollback cause it will get back to the same problem.

 

[I in the Eye]

I have no idea how to solve that issue without either a hard cap, which doesn't appeal to me, or a very stiff luxury tax, which doesn't seem to appeal to either the players or the league. It's a sticky problem, for sure.

If it doesn't appeal to either the players or the league, then IMO, this is the middle ground... This is the fair deal...

If a stiff luxury tax isn't the solution, IMO, there will be no hockey this year - nor for the foreseeable future... However, IMO, the solution will likely be the luxury tax... The cues that I get from Bettman and Goodenow talking to the media, to me, it's almost like they are setting it up so that the luxury tax is the exit strategy for both of them...

For example, from what I remember (and I admit that video games in my youth made my attention span quite low) there was no mention from Bettman and Goodenow of the word 'salary cap' during their newsconferences - maybe I'm being immune to the word, or I subconsciously ignored it, hearing what I wanted to hear - but I did not hear the word spoken from their mouths - and I was trying to pay close attention to the words they chose to use... If this is true, then IMO, Bettman and Goodenow perhaps came to a cooperation during the meeting not to use that dirty word... If true, this is a positive... and this could be a sign that both sides are willing to give and take on the 'luxury tax' parameters - using the salary rollback % and the luxury tax % as the main bargaining chips...

First pitch by Goodenow - very small luxury tax %, very high rollback %... Next pitch by Bettman - very high luxury tax %, very low rollback %...

Final deal (I'm hoping and predicting), somewhere in the middle... Good enough that either side doesn't end up smiling and giving old white men high fives and thumbs up, and good enough that pro-owner and pro-player supporters are left underwhelmed... Much like watching a boring hockey game ending in a 1-1 tie...

 

[txpd]

IMO the only way that the NHL goes forward without a salary cap is if the guaranteed contract is eliminated or a much lower buy out clause makes the guaranteed contract obsolete. IMO guaranteed contracts and a salary cap is a better deal for the players. we will see

 

[vanlady]

Yeah because Burke will say anything to keep his job. Come on, judging by your name you fairly familiar with Burke. When has Burke said anything that isn't the honest to god truth. Burke is not the type of guy who will say things to further himself. He's probably the most honest guy in sports and speaks unbiased, he gives credit wear credit is due. You may not think he's unbiased because of his viewpoints, but if I would believe anyone about the league's problems its him.

That's funny because he is the father of all the leagues problems. Who negotiated the last CBA. That's right none other than Brian Burke. Let's face it, Burke wants to be a GM again so bad he can taste it. Half of Vancouver knows that and the other half isn't paying attention. Brian Burke is NOT going to say anything that will jeopardize his chances of being a GM again.

 

[Shane]

That's funny because he is the father of all the leagues problems. Who negotiated the last CBA. That's right none other than Brian Burke. Let's face it, Burke wants to be a GM again so bad he can taste it. Half of Vancouver knows that and the other half isn't paying attention. Brian Burke is NOT going to say anything that will jeopardize his chances of being a GM again.

You fail to realize that when Burke was with Vancouver, he was outspoken to the point where it cost him his job. Burke's not the kind of guy to hold back. He'll say what's on his mind whether it costs him his job or not.

 

[Sammy*]

That's funny because he is the father of all the leagues problems. Who negotiated the last CBA. That's right none other than Brian Burke. Let's face it, Burke wants to be a GM again so bad he can taste it. Half of Vancouver knows that and the other half isn't paying attention. Brian Burke is NOT going to say anything that will jeopardize his chances of being a GM again.

I laugh at clowns that use the argument that because someone participated in the last round of CBA negotiations, that somehow their opinion does not have merit.
Its really great insight.

 

[PecaFan]

So Martin St Louis and Jerome Iginlas contracts can only be arbitrated using the adjusted contracts, so essentially they are getting the 24% rollback too. So again explain to me how salaries are going to be back to normal in 4 years.

New contracts will be able to be used for comparables as well. So as soon as some of those get into the arbitration mix, they'll float the other players upwards, just as happened in the past.

Essentially, this offer is Groundhog Day. Roll back a few years, but the course is set. There are some slight differences, but the end result will be the same.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

You might be hfboard staff... but lemme tell ya:

you are DEAD wrong on that one. The cap is coming... its just a matter of whether the players want to work with the NHL in implementing one for the 04-05 season, or if they want it shoved down their throats through impasse in the 05-06 season.

Either way, there will be cost certainty. There will be a cap.

and if you think otherwise, youve been attending PA meetings.

Me being a member of HF staff is no indicator of my knowledge on this subject. I'm just pretty darned sure the union will not give in.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I laugh at clowns that use the argument that because someone participated in the last round of CBA negotiations, that somehow their opinion does not have merit.
Its really great insight.

Re-read what he said.
You've completely mischaracterized it.

 

[two out of three*]

I didn't see it as a PR stunt at first, but now I see that it is. If they had a bigger luxury tax.. then you could accept that proposal could you not?

 

[txpd]

I didn't see it as a PR stunt at first, but now I see that it is. If they had a bigger luxury tax.. then you could accept that proposal could you not?

only a massively punitive luxury tax would have the required effect. if an nhl luxury tax turned out like the MLB tax, it would be a joke. it slows the red sox and the yankees down not at all. they dont win every year, but they are in the playoffs and make a deep run every year.

the rangers, leafs, flyers and red wings wouldn't break stride because of a luxury tax.

 

[Oiler_Fan]

To access the interview:

• Go to http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm
  
• Select "THU DEC 9" under date: and "10pm" under hour and hit "GO".
  Windows Media player will open up.
• Adjust the scroll on the bottom to "16:40".

Awesome man, great directions, thanks.

 

[old kummelweck]

If you ask me, Burke is interviewing for a job. Perhaps this is Bettmans swan song.

 

[Kid Canada]

That's funny because he is the father of all the leagues problems. Who negotiated the last CBA. That's right none other than Brian Burke. Let's face it, Burke wants to be a GM again so bad he can taste it. Half of Vancouver knows that and the other half isn't paying attention. Brian Burke is NOT going to say anything that will jeopardize his chances of being a GM again.

I don't quite know what to say to all your posts. I'm confused by your logic, and by many, and I mean many, of the things you say.

 

[Oiler_Fan]

I don't quite know what to say to all your posts. I'm confused by your logic, and by many, and I mean many, of the things you say.

Agreed. ..."he is the father of all the leagues problems"...

Quick to weaken previous arguments to attack another. It's obvious the logic will be quickly twisted to support whatever position this person has decided to emotionally attach themselves too.