Brooks:NHLPA proposal details

[RangerBoy]

As we understand it, the PA proposed an approximate team payroll range between $24M-and-$42.5M for 2005-06 (maybe slightly less), with the band thereafter linked to percentage increases OR decreases in readily identifiable league revenues. So that if the NHL matches its average growth of 7.8 percent over its last five seasons, the ceiling would increase to more than $48M in two years. Conversely, if the lockout/cancellation damage is irreversible in the short-term, the cap would be shifted downward.

There are luxury tax and revenue-share components within the PA concept, both of which are consistent with the union's approach throughout the lockout. But it's the introduction for first time of the union's willingness to link downward that has created a carefully crafted and managed league position of cautious optimism.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/44247.htm

Brooks feels the NHL will offer a $28-34 million range which coincides with 54% of the revenue

Click to read more...

 

[X0ssbar]

If that is indeed the PA's proposal then I would think the NHL absolutely has something to work from here.

I could see the salary range tightening a bit but there's every reason to have "guarded optimism" if this is what was discussed.

 

[Egil]

Question #1: What year is the "base" year.

Comment #1: Brooks is an idiot.

Question #2: Why does Brooks think the league will come back with an offer even worse than their last one?

Comment #2: Brooks is an idiot.

 

[Master Shake*]

Maybe we're wrong. Maybe the owners have finally come to their senses and understand that 2005-06 scab hockey will mark the end of their league as a credible enterprise. Maybe the owners will for the first time bargain in good faith- Brooks


Funny, scabs didnt seem to hurt the NFL any.

 

[Munchausen]

If true, the only thing I'd like to say is: about freakin' time! Welcome back to earth Bob. Of course, Brooks is indeed an idiot so just how right can he get an info, even when it comes from his own spiritual leader?

SO GARY Bettman and his executive mouth pieces believe that the CBA concept pres ented to the league by the PA last Monday might be workable

Just thought that part was kind of funny, Larry calling someone else a mouth piece. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Oilers Ent]

Brooks actually makes a good point here:

Under the league plan, Toronto, hitting the cap, would spend 37.8 percent of its revenue on payroll. Meanwhile, Nashville, at the required minimum, would be forced to spend 69.1 percent of its revenue on salaries. This pattern follows throughout, and would necessarily become more dramatically skewed with reductions in revenues certain to strike the league's soft, low-revenue U.S. markets more dramatically than the traditionally strong clubs in Canada and the States. It's likely that Carolina, Florida, Washington and Phoenix, for instance, would actually be required to invest up to 80 percent of their revenue into payroll. What would Mr. Levitt say about that?

The league has to improve its revenue sharing. They are probably holding it as their last card to get the union to agree to a CBA. Basically they will have all the nitty gritty done and then finally capitulate on the revenue sharing.

I can only hope.

 

[signalIInoise]

Just thought that part was kind of funny, Larry calling someone else a mouth piece. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fair enough -- Brooks is indeed something of a shill for the PA side of the squabble, but you have to give him credit for a little bit of independent thinking. A little. At the least, he did call the PA to the carpet for some of their missteps.

Fischler, on the other hand is the very definition of lapdog for the NHL. Thankfully, with his most recent articles, he's softened a tiny bit, and stopped putting 'union' in quotes 15 times per column inch. It's more than a little suspicious that he stopped that at precisely the same time that the CBA battle thawed a little. Again, say what you will about Larry, but Fischler was clearly kissing the a** that feeds him throughout this process.

That maneuver really made me want to punch his teeth down his throat. Say what you will about the PA, but unions as a whole deserve more respect than that for all the good they've done for the American worker.

 

[handtrick]

Brooks, as a NHLPA shill, is never more apparent than in that article.....he used the word "we" no less than eight times....and I know he wasn't referring to you, me and him as that collective "we."

He is such a bomb throwing hack that he should be relegated to his proper place as a "bloggster" instead of a "sports columnist" which is far to generous a term for him.....

 

[Mess]

Brooks actually makes a good point here:



The league has to improve its revenue sharing. They are probably holding it as their last card to get the union to agree to a CBA. Basically they will have all the nitty gritty done and then finally capitulate on the revenue sharing.

I can only hope.

There is an easy solution for Bettman ... Each team individually can only spend a max of 54% of its OWN EARNED REVENUES .. 30 Different Hard Cap ceilings, each based on team and market and performance.

Advantage :

Each team would be profitable, thus the league as a whole would be healthy and it would be great incentive for teams to be creative and raise more league Revenue if **Their ** OWN TEAM CAP is based on **Their** own abilities to run a profitable business, and are not tied together with the same rope that is firmly attached to the Titanic on the other end, much like Mountain climbers so that when one goes they all go.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

If true then this is some news, and the basis for a deal . . . actually it is pretty close to what the owners have asked for all along unless I am misreading. Too bad it took losing the season to get to this point. Now lets get ready for some hockey.

 

[pei fan]

There is an easy solution for Bettman ... Each team individually can only spend a max of 54% of its OWN EARNED REVENUES .. 30 Different Hard Cap ceilings, each based on team and market and performance.

Advantage :

Each team would be profitable, thus the league as a whole would be healthy and it would be great incentive for teams to be creative and raise more league Revenue if **Their ** OWN TEAM CAP is based on **Their** own abilities to run a profitable business, and are not tied together with the same rope that is firmly attached to the Titanic on the other end, much like Mountain climbers so that when one goes they all go.

You didn't take alot of time to think that one through,did you?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

You didn't take alot of time to think that one through,did you?

He doesn't spend much time thinking anything through. Anything that gives the biggest spenders an advantage in the game is good. Anything that continunes to see the players get more and more than 80% of teams can afford to pay is good. The whole thing to him is making sure that the players get to base their pay on what the largest market can pay, not what the average or median number is for the majority of teams (which is the whole marketplace). It's a maytter of six drunken sailors setting the mark for what everyone else in the bar has to spend. No thought required.

And here's a gem from Brooks' birdcage liner that I laughed outloud at.

"Maybe the owners have finally come to their senses and understand that 2005-06 scab hockey will mark the end of their league as a credible enterprise. Maybe the owners will for the first time bargain in good faith."

Maybe its the majority of players who have suddenly come to their senses and realized that 1/3 of the membership is watching their careers go down the drain as more and more young players continue their development in the AHL and impress their respective GM's, proving they deserve promotion to the big team. These players have maybe just had the lightbulb go on that tells them they have probably played their last game in the NHL just so Bill Guerin and Chris Pronger get paid substantially more than they are worth. These players have had the realization that playing in the minors or in Europe will see them making 1/10 of what they could have made in the NHL, no longer securing the future for their families. This lockout has just made many of the players expendible and their NHL careers likely come to an end. Maybe these players will make the NHLPA for the first time attempt to negotiate in any fashion, instead of standing on the edge of a cliff rejecting proposal after proposal.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

...

Maybe its the majority of players who have suddenly come to their senses and realized that 1/3 of the membership is watching their careers go down the drain as more and more young players continue their development in the AHL and impress their respective GM's, proving they deserve promotion to the big team. These players have maybe just had the lightbulb go on that tells them they have probably played their last game in the NHL just so Bill Guerin and Chris Pronger get paid substantially more than they are worth. These players have had the realization that playing in the minors or in Europe will see them making 1/10 of what they could have made in the NHL, no longer securing the future for their families. This lockout has just made many of the players expendible and their NHL careers likely come to an end. Maybe these players will make the NHLPA for the first time attempt to negotiate in any fashion, instead of standing on the edge of a cliff rejecting proposal after proposal.

Exactly. Again, if I read this proposal correctly, the players basically came around to the owners position. True, this upcoming season the Cap is not linked, but it is at the number the owners offered, $42 million. If in all subsequent years the Cap is linked to revenues, the owners would sign in a heartbeat I would think. They held their ground and got the deal they claim that they needed even if it may cost them a few million in year one. The players caved totally, in every respect and got far less than was offered before, a $42 million Cap throughout all 6 years of the contract.

Or have I misread? If not why would there be an expectation of a much lower counter offer? The Owners would take this. Maybe Brooks is setting this up as a players' 'win' when the owners accept.

 

[Pepper]

There is an easy solution for Bettman ... Each team individually can only spend a max of 54% of its OWN EARNED REVENUES .. 30 Different Hard Cap ceilings, each based on team and market and performance.

Advantage :

Each team would be profitable, thus the league as a whole would be healthy and it would be great incentive for teams to be creative and raise more league Revenue if **Their ** OWN TEAM CAP is based on **Their** own abilities to run a profitable business, and are not tied together with the same rope that is firmly attached to the Titanic on the other end, much like Mountain climbers so that when one goes they all go.

Do you realise that this doesn't help the small market teams at all in terms of competiviness?? Toronto has what 3 times as much revenues as Nashville so they can spend 3 times more than Nashville, don't you realize how ridiculous your proposal is?

Please, I know you like the PA about as much as Brooks but your 'ideas' are getting more and more removed from reality.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Do you realise that this doesn't help the small market teams at all in terms of competiviness?? Toronto has what 3 times as much revenues as Nashville so they can spend 3 times more than Nashville, don't you realize how ridiculous your proposal is?

Please, I know you like the PA about as much as Brooks but your 'ideas' are getting more and more removed from reality.

So its better for Nashville to spend 80% of their revenues in salary?

 

[Drury_Sakic]

it does not say how exactly it is tied to revenues... or what revenues are...

I would think that is the "incomplete" part of the offer that Daly talked about...


24 Floor 42 Cap for next season would be taken by the Owners in a heartbeat if they got linkage.....

it just depends on


A) What is revenue

B) Is there a clause #7 in there somewhere

C) What is the base year for revenue(i.e. how much of a % of revenue is the linkage system based off of)

D) What will the PA demand in other areas if they cave to linkage(IMO the league will have to cave everywhere else to get the hard cap + linkage)

E) Is this just a ploy by the PA to bloster their court case?





Sounds like good news..... But I smell a fish..

 

[Pepper]

So its better for Nashville to spend 80% of their revenues in salary?

Huh?? Why should they spend that much?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Huh?? Why should they spend that much?

Because the floor requires it?

 

[Drury_Sakic]

the whole idea with a Floor will be that there is at least some revenue sharing..

and NO WAY does the PA say Yes to linkage without a MASSIVE revenue sharing plan...

if revenue sharing is done correctly..and the league(by league I mean CBA) mandates a certain % of the shared revenue your team gets must be put back into paying players the PA might just get enough back to be really happy...


Which means that Nashville and Toronto will be pulling in different amounts of revenue, but once revenue sharing kicks in... they will both still have roughly the same money to spend on players....

 

[Jaded-Fan]

the whole idea with a Floor will be that there is at least some revenue sharing..

and NO WAY does the PA say Yes to linkage without a MASSIVE revenue sharing plan...

if revenue sharing is done correctly..and the league(by league I mean CBA) mandates a certain % of the shared revenue your team gets must be put back into paying players the PA might just get enough back to be really happy...


Which means that Nashville and Toronto will be pulling in different amounts of revenue, but once revenue sharing kicks in... they will both still have roughly the same money to spend on players....

That's a big if . . . Those terms need to be very closely defined. Look to baseball where most smaller revenue clubs pocketed the revenue sharing dollars. Or on the other end where the Yankees are talking about diverting revenue sharing payments for the next 30 years to build themselves a new stadium. All legal by the various definitions in baseball's revenue sharing plan. I am hoping that the NHL will handle this better than baseball has.

 

[Mess]

You didn't take alot of time to think that one through,did you?

I bet if you took the Hard Cap floor in the CBA and some of the teams that hover near it and the teams that are at the Hard Cap ceiling ..

You would get the same disparity ..

You youngsters just have to put a little more thought into your responses ..

If Florida has a payroll at $ 22 mil and Detroit is at $40 mil .. I bet that is pretty close to 54% of each teams revenues. That was going to happen in the NHL anyways in the next CBA as those figures are dangerously close to the last NHL proposal it gave the NHLPA to digest, and the 54% is spot on its linkage portion..

Salaries are actually dependent on markets, regardless if people want to accept that or not. Nik Lidstrom makes $10 mil per season in Detroit, and if he would want to play in Florida would have to accept far less as they could never afford that in the old CBA and that is not going to change in the new one.. Nik Lidstrom the player is still the same hockey player no matter which one on the 30 markets he plays in and gives no team an advantage on the ice by having him, in regards to how much he gets paid. Its all relative if the deciding factor is 54% linkage / per team .. Sure Detroit generates more Revenue but is still bound by the 54% figure and all that it means is that Lidstrom is paid more in one city then the other and that is a benefit to no one but Lidstrom himself.

It promotes owners to invest and manage their teams better and give them incentive not to tank seasons or field glorified AHL teams that drag the entire NHL down as League Revenue drops and thus a Hard Cap for all 30 teams regardless of their own performance and budget management skills .. Bettman's big IDLE promises of big TV contract deals split 30 ways benefiting all equally and if the concept of 60 /40 home verses visiting gate receipts was used and split to determine each Team Revenue generated, a formula could be easily derived.

Your immediate out cry without actual thought just goes to prove that you believe that some Hockey markets will never be able to compete equally with others, regardless how much the League is restricted as a whole ..

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I don't read anything linked to Larry Brooks, but just out of curiousity, how did he find time out of his busy schedule of making pretty ribbons and bows for the players poodles to write his piece??

 

[futurcorerock]

Maybe we're wrong. Maybe the owners have finally come to their senses and understand that 2005-06 scab hockey will mark the end of their league as a credible enterprise. Maybe the owners will for the first time bargain in good faith- Brooks


Funny, scabs didnt seem to hurt the NFL any.

I doubt that, speaking that it was the NHLPA who made this super sweet deal that got everyone talking. Ofcourse it'd be bad news for the NHL, but it could potentially be life-changing for the NHLPA members.

 

[HSHS]

Brooks actually makes a good point here:



The league has to improve its revenue sharing. They are probably holding it as their last card to get the union to agree to a CBA. Basically they will have all the nitty gritty done and then finally capitulate on the revenue sharing.

I can only hope.

80% of revenue is better than the 166% that they Caps have been paying in the past (~30M rev and 50M payroll)

 

[Kritter471]

Maybe we're wrong. Maybe the owners have finally come to their senses and understand that 2005-06 scab hockey will mark the end of their league as a credible enterprise. Maybe the owners will for the first time bargain in good faith- Brooks

Funny, scabs didnt seem to hurt the NFL any.

Gah.

The NFL is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BEAST than the NHL when it comes to this issue.

Point a.) the NFL only went to scabs because they had iron-clad TV contracts and had to put a product out there in order to get that revenue.

Point 2.) the NFL drew horribly at the gate during the scab era, and the NHL, being a gate-revenue league, would probably lose more in operating costs in most cities for simply fielding a team of scabs.

Point pi.) The NFL is a brand marketing league. I work for the Dallas Cowboys and probably could name 40 of their players off the top of my head (out of 52 +8 practice squad). Most hard-core fans could only name the two sets of starters, the quarterbacks and perhaps a layers of backups/special teams guys. What draws people is the Dallas Cowboys brand, not the chance to see a young Patrick Crayton make his NFL debut or Dat Nguyen play linebacker. Conversely, the chance to see a Progner or Chelios play in a given city is what draws a lot of fans to a rink. There's only two teams I can legitimately call brand marketed to an extent that works throughout the league (i.e., home and away) - The Leafs and the Canadiens. The Bruins, Hawks and Rangers had that going, but their recent issues with ownership have shown the organizations true colors, and the Wings have it now but in the mid-80s had a horrible time drawing (I believe, I could be wrong here).