Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by SopelFan*, Sep 14, 2004.
Now if he could explain all of that....
Not a Burke fan, but it's a decent proposal.
In particular, two things I've been pointing out repeatedly, which is why salaries can only go up until UFA status is reached:
1) Only players can file for arbitration, and can do so repeatedly.
2) Qualifying offers must be 100 or 110%.
Both addressed, and fairly.
This is one of the most reasonable proposals I've seen since the whole debate began.
I have a huge issue with all teams must have a total salary between $33 and $38 million? What? This would be Joe Banner's dream job. I understand his taxing on it, but that is a narrow window....
for those who don't know, Joe Banner has been the Philadelphia Eagles capologist for many years, being the subject of much criticism during the lean years
True but if there is any kind of luxury tax or revenue sharing then it has to be accompanied by some kind of salary floor. Otherwise the rich teams are just putting money into the poor owner's pockets instead of into the poor owner's teams.
Overall I like the proposal and it addresses many key issues besides just the basic cap/no cap debate.
it's the best thing I've seen yet.
it's not perfect I'd like it if some things were changed, like the Free agency age, but it's a pretty decent proposal that I think could be a compromise from both sides to get a deal done.
it's a starting point at the very least.
he did during the 1st intermission of the Game on CBC.
if someone has the video or at least the Audio it'd be much apreciated.
I can host if anyone has it but can't host it themselfs
It's a luxury tax, anybody who wants to go over $38 million can.
A fantastic plan with some interesting idea - the best I have seen yet. Prolly wishfull thinking to think the NHL/NHLPA could use this baby as a start.
Any system that requires a salary floor, seems to be waving a big red flag - illogical system.
Washington shouldnt be allowed to develop all its prospects?
the part I didn't like was lowering the ufa age to 29,but I guess that's probably a key point for the nhlpa.
Opposite, actually. The NHLPA would rather have a high age I bet, because that leads to less supply of UFA's, and therefore higher salaries. A lower age means lots of players available, and lower salaries.
Escrow is interesting. Owners hold back money too. Thos 2 arent enough. The arena fund gets the escrow interest or leftovers?
Yuck. No rebuilding. No Greatness. No learning from NFLs mistakes
Designated Hockey Revenues? Seems to be a deal killer right there. This is a compromise to who exactly?
Luxury taxes seem pretty extreme.
Otherwise some interesting ideas.
And I guess the lowering of the age of free agency to 29 is the part thats needed to save the large markets. This will let them start buying more useful players for a change. This must be what the big markets are really after. Getting hold of star players from poor teams while they are still in their prime. Its been a long frustrating 10 years for big markets. Next time when they spend, they should have a better chance of winning.
I like all the parts I understand except for the escore which I heard of in the NBA except for the "Set payroll threshold at 38 million and payroll minimum at 33 million"
I don't like it all, in the NFL they can tax you if a team is too much under the cap
I like rewarding teams that stick to a sound budget....
Damn....I'm startin' to like Brian Burke...
I liked several aspects but like you, I sure didn't like that one.
In fact, I hated it and don't want to see that happen at all.
Whats funny is that everyone on the planet not working for the owners or the player's union can agree on what the CBA should be.. why can't they!?
Common sense is rarely the goal of both sides of a negociation. It's rare enough when it's the goal of ONE side of a negociation.
I don't like the lowering of the UFA age either, but you can't just expect the NHLPA to rollover and give up everything, you have to give some to get a lot.
I actually like the minumum $33 mil payroll idea. With a luxury tax, the poorer teams are going to be receiving money, so the priority of the league should be to make sure that these teams are investing that money into their teams, creating for a more balanced NHL. Perhaps $33 is a bit too high though, $31 mil may be a better number.
Well since others here have expressed the same concerns, that team's shouldnt be forced to spend money if they want to develop their players, then I propose the following simple solution:
Teams who do not spend at least the minimum ($33 million) are ineligible for any revenue sharing that year.
So teams who want to take a year or two off to develop their draft picks are welcome to do so but the other owners dont have to pay for it. Really it's the only way I can see to prevent teams from pulling a Cincinnati Bengals and pocketing the revenue sharing money without putting any of it back into the team.
I liked his proposal, it was fair and smart and well thought out. A min salary spent like the NFL has is good enough for the greedy players.
I like the idea of the salary floor, as I think that is required in the give and take with the spending owners. If a team is under the salary floor, maybe they would just have to contribute the remaining balance to the revenue sharing plan. It might be hard at times for every team to fall between the lines, and all the teams should be required to put a minimum effort into the league that isn't so minimal (as in a $30+ million payroll).
It's a start, but probably has as many holes for both sides as their offers do right now.
Where was this plan last week when they were at the bargaining table?
The only problem I have is that the season would be shortened to 70 games. As a fan, I would want to see as many games as I can. Besides, the owners would never go for this. After all, fewer games=Fewer $.
Separate names with a comma.