Brian Burke's proposal

[Vlad The Impaler]

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.

No, but strong, intelligent ownership wouldn't have to ask and to wait for them to "give". They would have crushed the union 10 years ago if they wanted.

You can get everything if you go for it the right way.

That being said, under the current circumstances, there's no way the owners will get everything. Heck, there's little chance they will get anything remotely satisfying for them or for me.

 

[GKJ]

No, but strong, intelligent ownership wouldn't have to ask and to wait for them to "give". They would have crushed the union 10 years ago if they wanted.

You can get everything if you go for it the right way.

That being said, under the current circumstances, there's no way the owners will get everything. Heck, there's little chance they will get anything remotely satisfying for them or for me.

Got any suggestions on to how to go about this?

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

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?

If money is being given to poorer teams, it ought to be spent on players. It prevents a situation where some owner is putting a bunch of AHL players on the ice and pocketting the league's money for himself.

I'd suggest that a team choosing to not meet the minimum salary (say, a team full of prospects) should be able to, but forfeit any league money they had coming.

Yuck. No rebuilding. No Greatness. No learning from NFLs mistakes

A team wanting to keep its great core together could choose to do so by paying the "overage fees".

Designated Hockey Revenues? Seems to be a deal killer right there. This is a compromise to who exactly?

I have yet to figure out why players think boat shows, N-Sync concerts, and rodeos should be considered when they're adding up league revenue.

 

[Canucks-R-best]

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.

Yes but a lower ufa age means more ufa's at seasons end so the asking price will be much lower....The season holik got payed 9 mill a year hardly any players were available so holik could demand and get more $$, lets say instead of one good two way centre as a ufa there could be 2, 3 maybe 4 making the asking price lower...no way would holik be payed that much if there was 3 others to chose from...Lower ufa age means more players to chose from = less battle between teams to sign = players getting less cash

 

[SedinFan*]

http://www.cbc.ca/pcgi-bin/templates/sportsView.cgi?/news/2004/09/14/Sports/burke040914

Burke is a god!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Yes but a lower ufa age means more ufa's at seasons end so the asking price will be much lower....The season holik got payed 9 mill a year hardly any players were available so holik could demand and get more $$, lets say instead of one good two way centre as a ufa there could be 2, 3 maybe 4 making the asking price lower...no way would holik be payed that much if there was 3 others to chose from...Lower ufa age means more players to chose from = less battle between teams to sign = players getting less cash

Financially, I don't have a problem with it if other clauses make sense. But one of the reasons I think the NHL has lost its magic is due to too many transactions. Athletes just don't stay put anymore and that is REALLY unfortunate, IMO.

You lower the age to 29 and players retiring with the same jersey on their back that they started with will be even more uncommon than it has already become. I really enjoy talking trades. I LOVE trade rumors and I love hockey moves on a strategic level. That's why I love fantasy hockey (where I often try to pull one trade a week on average). But in reality, you want athletes that care about a city and fans that relate and care about the athlete.

I think we have lost this in sports.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Got any suggestions on to how to go about this?

Do you mean, how a CBA could satisfy me? That would be very difficult

 

[Skylab]

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. /

As a fan I want to see the best hockey possible. I'd gladly give up the extra games if it meant players were better rested with less minor injuries to worry about. Also each game would be a little more significant in the playoff standings.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

As a fan, I have NO problem with a 70-game schedule, except possibly that some rival players will be seen less often in a season if you follow a single team.

For the owners, I doubt they will go for it. IF they want to try it, you can BANK on a progressive cutback. So they'd probably cut to 78 or 80 games at first. Then *maybe* to 76 if it works out fine.

Don't expect anything less than 74 games a season ever, IMO.

IMO, 78 games a season would be a nice compromise and I think 4 games does make a difference, if small.

 

[ehc73]

Burke still says a cap is the best system, this is just his "working solution". It's to be phased in over 2 years so that the teams with the big payrolls will be able to adjust accordingly.
While this could really work, the problem is what each side says is "designated hockey revenue". There's the NHL's definition and the PA's definition...just like it seems what each side's definition of a salary cap is.

 

[garry1221]

1. obvious need to phase in over a short time, agreed

2. at the start, you'd have the 2 year phase in, plus the usual 10 year length, agreed

3. didn't fully understand him, was the 7% players payroll and the 10% DHR supposed to be used for the arena construction fund?, if so it's a nice idea, help any team needing to build a new arena

4. if spread among all teams each team would get 6 2/3 mil, not too shabby and could help any team alot

5. 38 and 33 mil sound fair, not the supercheap 31 that bettman's been trying to push, yet not getting too out of control either

6. fees aren't horrible either, if a team trades and goes over by a little it won't penalize them completely, yet if a team doesn't care and does go over alot, then they've obviously got the money to do shell out, agreed completely

7. how can anyone not agree with this

8. 55% is a fair number, combined with the 10% of DHR going in escrow it would only leave 35% revenue for the league as a whole

9. another how can you not agree with it, if there's no trust we wind up with what we have now, with a trusting relationship no one can argue over finances anymore

10. burke said it himself, he messed up 10 years ago when he helped create the entry level program

11. have to be some concessions for the players, so yes agreed
amendment: set age down to 27, more give from the owners side
all players rights are retained by team that drafts them for 10 years, so while they're free to sign with any team, the team that drafted them gets compensation in form of a draft pick based on said player's total salary this gives player's more freedom

something like this could work as far as that goes
500k = 6th rd pick
600k = 5th rd
700k = 4th rd
800k = 3rd rd
900k = 2nd rd
1 mil = 1st rd
1.1+ = 2 1st rd picks

12. couldn't agree more

13. while some argue less games = less revenue, it could benefit the league, burke's comments on this were dead on, 70 games could be workable:
5 games vs same div 3 or 4 games vs conf(3 vs one div, 4 vs the other, rotate back and forth every season), 15 vs other conf(every other season the opposite 15)... total 70 games, while teams wouldn't see all of the teams each year, it would only be a year, unlike now where some teams haven't played each other for 2 or 3 years

14. we all have agreed arbitration needs to be changed, seems like a change for the better IMO

15. agree

 

[me2]

As a fan, I have NO problem with a 70-game schedule, except possibly that some rival players will be seen less often in a season if you follow a single team.

For the owners, I doubt they will go for it. IF they want to try it, you can BANK on a progressive cutback. So they'd probably cut to 78 or 80 games at first. Then *maybe* to 76 if it works out fine.

Don't expect anything less than 74 games a season ever, IMO.

IMO, 78 games a season would be a nice compromise and I think 4 games does make a difference, if small.

Take those 4 games out of the last month of the Regs and they would do wonders in terms of letting players get physically repaired in time for the playoffs.

Only downside is that it results in up to a 15% loss of gate revenue (which is about $4-5m relative to $33-38m range salary range).

82 games and $38-42m OR 70 games and $33-38m.

I think I know which the players would take.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

First of all, I doubt any of us can adequately comment on Brian Burke's proposal. It was quite complex...that escrow stuff? What?

Nevertheless, this being an internet forum, don't ever let ignorance stand in the way of loudly voicing and defending your opinion!

However, his suggestion would never fly, because of point 8: Players get 55% of DHR, guaranteed. They will never accept something like that.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

However, his suggestion would never fly, because of point 8: Players get 55% of DHR, guaranteed. They will never accept something like that.

This isn't a problem except for the fact that the players don't want to recognize there is such a thing as designated hockey revenues. This is a floor not a ceiling. It would be necessary because otherwise the player share would probably be less than 55% under the Burke scheme. The problem is in number six, the penalties for going over the threshold. They are so high, the tax becomes a defacto cap.

(And if the players are going to accept a salary cap, defacto or not, the owners will have to be willing to throw out all the entry level stuff and free agency will have to come a lot earlier than age 29. If free agency comes soon enough, you don't need arbitration. Maybe keep the entry level stuff but at the end of four years, the player becomes a UFA. I don't think you can expect the players to accept a worse tradeoff than what NBA players get if you expect them to accept an NBA cap. The owners want fundamental change and they can't have that without paying the price. Under a capped system, the stars have to get their money way earlier.)

That said, the Burke proposals can at least be negotiated. The players can counter his position while they can't counter Bettman's. They can accept half the proposals, reject a few and amend a few and send it back to Brian.

Tom

 

[garry1221]

This isn't a problem except for the fact that the players don't want to recognize there is such a thing as designated hockey revenues. This is a floor not a ceiling. It would be necessary because otherwise the player share would probably be less than 55% under the Burke scheme. The problem is in number six, the penalties for going over the threshold. They are so high, the tax becomes a defacto cap.

(And if the players are going to accept a salary cap, defacto or not, the owners will have to be willing to throw out all the entry level stuff and free agency will have to come a lot earlier than age 29. If free agency comes soon enough, you don't need arbitration. Maybe keep the entry level stuff but at the end of four years, the player becomes a UFA. I don't think you can expect the players to accept a worse tradeoff than what NBA players get if you expect them to accept an NBA cap. The owners want fundamental change and they can't have that without paying the price. Under a capped system, the stars have to get their money way earlier.)

That said, the Burke proposals can at least be negotiated. The players can counter his position while they can't counter Bettman's. They can accept half the proposals, reject a few and amend a few and send it back to Brian.

Tom

with point seven i think you could keep in either the entry level stuff or the UFA, though i still think it would have to be lowered at least to 27 or 28, or amend the QO to a straight 75 % no matter what age and take out the drop dead signing date

wouldn't say the penalties for going over the threshhold are too high, especially given a couple years for this to fully take effect, a team could have a 43 mil payroll if they so choose, but they'd be sinking themselves by having to pay 11.5 mil in the overage fees, thus making final payroll 54.5 mil, the way he's got it seems lenient (sp?) enough for those who step a little out of bounds, but make it so you're the one sinking yourself if you choose to go too far outside the box

but i do agree, burke's proposals could at least be considered and amended as needed, a good pringboard for things to come IMO, lets hope bettman and goodenow try it out

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

funny ... its almost like Burke is admitting the owners fudge the books, even if its just sometimes !

9. Build trust with joint audit controls:
1st offence = $1 million fine
2nd offence = $5 million fine

There should be ZERO 2nd offence as a SINGLE accounting offence is a total breach of trust. The fine should be 1 billion dollars for ANY "malicious" offence and subject to forensic accounting.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

There should be ZERO 2nd offence as a SINGLE accounting offence is a total breach of trust. The fine should be 1 billion dollars for ANY "malicious" offence and subject to forensic accounting.

That would be close to the players asking the owners to self-destruct this league.

I don't think that's even in the players' interest.

However, I'm sure they could reach a level of fine both parties find suitable.

The key is not the fines, however. The key would be for them to agree on who/what/when/where/how to make the verifications. That alone might be a massive pain in the ass.

I love the idea of controls. But in practice, this could be very awkward and costly. And people might not even trust the results. And there might be appeals and all sorts of crazy **** to buy time or further manipulate the numbers.

It's not worth it, IMO. There has to be better solutions that do not involve controls out there. Just have the two parties agree to a number they can live with and to hell with that crap.

 

[MikeC44]

One thing Burke didn't touch on is the compensation related to signing Restricted Free Agents.
I think the compensation needs to be lowered, especially if the QO minimum is lowered.

 

[Other Dave]

I won't go into how awful I think this proposal is. I'll just point out that these suggestions would utterly destroy Ottawa's hopes of ever becoming more than a bubble team. Therefore, as a Sens fan, I'm against it.

 

[The Fuhr*]

I won't go into how awful I think this proposal is. I'll just point out that these suggestions would utterly destroy Ottawa's hopes of ever becoming more than a bubble team. Therefore, as a Sens fan, I'm against it.

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I first saw the proposal. Ottawa has the potential to be hockeys next Dynasty and with Burks proposal there would go any shot of that. I hope there is no salery Cap.

 

[Roughneck]

One thing Burke didn't touch on is the compensation related to signing Restricted Free Agents.
I think the compensation needs to be lowered, especially if the QO minimum is lowered.

I think that the NHL may have to give a little on RFAs. The NHL already has the most restrictive free agent system of the big 4 and a little leeway will have to be given. I'd say take away the restrictions on many of the bubble players. Instead of 10 years under the league minimum, make it any player under the league minumum is a UFA unless they are coming off an entry level contract. Some players shouldn't be forced to stay with a team where they are a 7th defenseman or 13th forward when another team may want them at an increased role.

We shouldn't be looking at this as a FINAL proposal by Burke, but a base to go from. Why are we viewing this as something that cannot be tweaked? I think we can all see it is a damn good proposal, but naturally bioth sides will have to do some give and take with figures and taxes, but overall, its a terrific proposal to work with.

 

[Chili]

I like the rookie bonus cap of $250 k, although they will probably factor in a scale for top picks. Rick DiPietro's rookie contract helped keep him in the minors and Marc Andre Fleury's threatens to do the same. And if Fleury had made $4 million last year for marginal play, what would you pay him when his rookie contract expires?

 

[projexns]

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 $.

Actually, owners would end up making more money. Players are essentially paid on a per-game basis. To use an easy example, if a player is making $1,640,000 per year ($20,000 per game), his salary will be reduced to $1,400,000 if the NHL goes to a 70 game season ($20,000 x 70 games). Players will not get the same money for playing fewer games.

Other revenue sources however need not be reduced. The CBC will pay the same amount of money for broadcast rights fees because they will still get their Saturday night hockey telecasts 24 times per year. The reduced number of games will not come at the expense of Saturday evenings.

Merchandising revenue will not be reduced if the schedule is reduced. You will buy your favourite team's jersey regardless of whether it's an 82-game season or a 70-game season. But the revenues derived from that source will add up to more on a per-game basis if there are fewer games.

Again, using a simple example, if the CBC pays $60 million per year for broadcast rights, that amounts to $2,000,000 for each of the 30 teams.

$2,000,000 divided up over 41 home games = $48,780.48 per home game to put towards player salaries, operating expenses, etc.

$2,000,000 divided up over 35 home games = $57,142.85 per home game to put
towards player salaries, operating expenses, etc.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

There should be ZERO 2nd offence as a SINGLE accounting offence is a total breach of trust. The fine should be 1 billion dollars for ANY "malicious" offence and subject to forensic accounting.

Uh, okay Dr. Evil.

 

[Pavel]

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?

If a team refuses to spend money to be competitive why should they receive financial assistance from other teams? Baseball does the same thing. The NFL has a payroll minimum as well. That's what would keep teams from having an 11 million dollar payroll. I don't have a problem with aspect of the plan.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but how does this prevent Washington from developing their prospects?