Daly coming on the Fan; Don't forget Burke tonight on CKNW

[SENSible1*]

This is false. They wanted to discuss the non-cap issues first.

True, I should have been more specific. I simply meant that the PA had indicated these issues were important to them.

It was the league that was not prepared to discuss all the issues.

This is false. The league wanted to discuss the cap FIRST before discussing the other issues.

 

[Ola]

I think what owners want is for players to be fixed costs. The players seem to be fighting for the right to remain variable costs.

The main issue IMO is that the players wanted teams that really wants to invest allot of money to still beable to invest allot of money. Its defenitly workable for the league if they had a first cap level at 35m, then a 100% luxery tax from 35-45 for example. If that tax would have went directly into a revenue sharing pot it would even be better for the small market teams. However a fixed players cost means that the value of a org. increases allot and thats what the owners are after... It defenitly not a attempt to save small market teams at this point...

I love it when a owner complains that for example gooing to 42million is a stretch for him... Under the old CBA teams at 30million managed to compete with teams at 80 million. So without a doubt in a hardcap enviorment teams spending 25-30m million still will be able to be comtetive with teams at 40m. If you look at the history their is a big partion of the owners around the league who never would spend a dime more then it takes to have a chance to make the PO's. How likely is it that thoose owners would spend over 30 million in a new CBA when some of them only spent 25-35million under the old CBA?

So a honest and fair question should be, not what hardcap number is workable for the small market teams, but in a certain enviorment what will it take to make the playoffs and be competetive and if that number is workable for these small market teams?

For example if the cap is at 60m teams at 40m would still be competetive, since many owners think 40million is a stretch maybe a cap at 57-58 million is whats fair. What do you guys think? Its plain common sense IMO. Its just to bad that the owners have all the leverge and support from homer Canadian media...

 

[Weary]

This is false. The league wanted to discuss the cap FIRST before discussing the other issues.

When Linden told Gretzky that the PA wanted to discuss the other issues first, Gretzky told them, in his own words, "that I didn't have a role in that at all, that I wasn't there for that. And that's kind of the way it went. There never was real discussion about the cap number."

That doesn't sound like the league was ready to discuss anything other than the cap.

 

[Timmy]

The main issue IMO is that the players wanted teams that really wants to invest allot of money to still beable to invest allot of money. Its defenitly workable for the league if they had a first cap level at 35m, then a 100% luxery tax from 35-45 for example. If that tax would have went directly into a revenue sharing pot it would even be better for the small market teams. However a fixed players cost means that the value of a org. increases allot and thats what the owners are after... It defenitly not a attempt to save small market teams at this point...

I love it when a owner complains that for example gooing to 42million is a stretch for him... Under the old CBA teams at 30million managed to compete with teams at 80 million. So without a doubt in a hardcap enviorment teams spending 25-30m million still will be able to be comtetive with teams at 40m. If you look at the history their is a big partion of the owners around the league who never would spend a dime more then it takes to have a chance to make the PO's. How likely is it that thoose owners would spend over 30 million in a new CBA when some of them only spent 25-35million under the old CBA?

Yeah, the luxury tax system sure leveled the playing field in baseball, where there's fans watching spring training already knowing their team's not going to the Series.

And the problem with a 30m team being able to compete with an 80m team is that after a good year, the players enabling the 30m to compete would wind up costing the team 50m, so that team could not consistently compete year-over-year, as it would have to trade away the players that contributed to its success.

And the reason the 80m team has problems to begin with is that GMs backed by deep pockets can indiscrimately sign or trade for every big name that becomes available, with no regard for team chemistry, etc. Under a cap, GMs would have to be smart again, like the Patriots, and not simply try to buy a championship.

*Paging Mr. Sather*

Personally, I think the maneouvering would be fun to watch, and I come from a market that could potentially be hurt by a cap (Vancouver).

 

[Ola]

Yeah, the luxury tax system sure leveled the playing field in baseball, where there's fans watching spring training already knowing their team's not going to the Series.

Well the Yankees spend pretty darn much more then a NHL team would be able to spend in that scenario. If there would be a 10 million luxerytax window between 35-45 followed by a hardcap at 45 it would hardly leave much room for teams to do what the Yankees have done in Baseball.

 

[davemess]

That doesn't sound like the league was ready to discuss anything other than the cap.

Well that sorta makes sense, the League would need the cap to be fixed first in order for them to work out the numbers on the other issues from there.

 

[Timmy]

Well the Yankees spend pretty darn much more then a NHL team would be able to spend in that scenario. If there would be a 10 million luxerytax window between 35-45 followed by a hardcap at 45 it would hardly leave much room for teams to do what the Yankees have done in Baseball.

My bad.

I missed the hard cap at 45m.

 

[FLYLine27*]

..So what did Daly ever have to say on the FAN?

 

[Weary]

Well that sorta makes sense, the League would need the cap to be fixed first in order for them to work out the numbers on the other issues from there.

Do you negotiate the price of a car and then negotiate the options it will have? It's best to negotiate dollars after all the features have been settled on.

 

[SENSible1*]

When Linden told Gretzky that the PA wanted to discuss the other issues first, Gretzky told them, in his own words, "that I didn't have a role in that at all, that I wasn't there for that. And that's kind of the way it went. There never was real discussion about the cap number."

That doesn't sound like the league was ready to discuss anything other than the cap.

Actually it doesn't sound like Gretzky wanted to discuss anything other than the cap. The quote you've provided sheds no light on the NHL willingness to discuss non cap issues.

 

[davemess]

Do you negotiate the price of a car and then negotiate the options it will have?

Yes, I would need to have a fairly good idea what the car is going to cost before i picked the options i want. If i know i can afford to spend $20,000 on a car but have no idea if the car is going to cost $17 or $20 thousand how can i choose between the $3,000 sports suspension or the $0 standard suspension?

 

[Weary]

When he said "that's kind of the way it went," I took that to mean that no one would discuss those issues with the players.

It's clear the NHLPA was ready to discuss all the outstanding issues. It's also clear that no issues were really ever discussed. We can either speculate that the NHL didn't want to discuss all the issues. Or we can speculate that the NHL would only discuss the issues in a specific order. I think the former is much more plausible than the latter.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

When he said "that's kind of the way it went," I took that to mean that no one would discuss those issues with the players.

It's clear the NHLPA was ready to discuss all the outstanding issues. It's also clear that no issues were really ever discussed. We can either speculate that the NHL didn't want to discuss all the issues. Or we can speculate that the NHL would only discuss the issues in a specific order. I think the former is much more plausible than the latter.

Or maybe, just maybe the NHL cannot discuss these other issues as they all hinge on the cap the players agree to.

SO once you agree to a cap number then the players and the NHL can hammer out these other issues based on the number agreed to in the cap.

 

[i am dave]

If the Union is not interested in a static monetary figure, they should seriously consider the linkage plan. If the on-ice product became watchable to anyone other than the die-hard fan, revenue would increase. If league-wide revenue could increase to $2.7B, you're looking at linkage setting a cap at $49M. If league-wide revenue increases to $3.3B, you're looking at linkage setting a cap at $60M. If league-wide revenues are at $3.3B, teams would have a much more difficult time of convincing anybody that they're faltering economically.

In other words, if the Union is looking at economic dynamics, they should be negotiating linkage percentages, and then fixing the on-ice product to put more money in their pockets.

 

[fan mao rong]

As for the 22M floor, this might be a problem for the owners if they plan on using replacement players under such a CBA. That would mean they have to pay at a minimum 22M in payroll for their replacement squad, and considering they will have to significantly reduce the ticket prices to attrack fans back with this product, I don't see how this will now be possible (unless they come up with a final offer without a floor once more prior to calling impasse).

Don't see it. I believe they will bring in replacements without impasse, therefore they could set their payroll as they deem necessary. And even under impasse, the contracts would all likely be non-guaranteed, and the returning NHLPA personnel would take up alot of the 22 million, and when more return they could release other substitutes. Even if they lost money, the 22 million would only average to about 1 million per player, the question being, would they lose more at a 1`million per player average with supposedly declining revenues than at a 1.8 or higher average had they resumed under the old system. And they had zero revenue in the last (unplayed) season, and supposedly had higher losses in the previous 10 years under the old CBA. ( Not the same for every team). So another year of some loss is just a continuation. I would bet the losses would be less under a reduced payroll system than they would have had under the players' regime.

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

..So what did Daly ever have to say on the FAN?

Unfortunately I myself missed the interview until there was less than a minute left. And it doesn't look like they've archived it on their website. However, I did find this interview from this morning with Vincent Damphousse:

http://www.fan590.com/mp3s/Vincent Damphousse - mar 18.mp3

 

[Munchausen]

Don't see it. I believe they will bring in replacements without impasse, therefore they could set their payroll as they deem necessary. And even under impasse, the contracts would all likely be non-guaranteed, and the returning NHLPA personnel would take up alot of the 22 million, and when more return they could release other substitutes. Even if they lost money, the 22 million would only average to about 1 million per player, the question being, would they lose more at a 1`million per player average with supposedly declining revenues than at a 1.8 or higher average had they resumed under the old system. And they had zero revenue in the last (unplayed) season, and supposedly had higher losses in the previous 10 years under the old CBA. ( Not the same for every team). So another year of some loss is just a continuation. I would bet the losses would be less under a reduced payroll system than they would have had under the players' regime.

Playing replacement hockey without impasse is a very risky tactic as no NHLPA member can cross even if they wanted. That would help keep them unified. The whole idea (for me) behind using replacement players is to let the ones who want to play join a team and therefore create cracks in the union until it is complete chaos and they cave. If you don't give them this opportunity, they might sit an other whole year if need be, and that wouldn't go well for the owners. It's to the league's advantage that replacement hockey only lasts a few weeks at the very most.

And 22M is a lot. There are teams out there struggling with a 30M payroll. Assuming the fanbase has shrunk and replacement hockey won't work as well as regular NHL hockey, a 22M payroll could mean millions more in losses for some franchises. All this will depend on how they would deal with ticket prices. Could they readjust the prices on the fly during the season when more NHLers come back or do they need to set a fix price at the begining of the season and leave it as is for the whole year? Pretty important aspect of the replacement hockey option.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

When Linden told Gretzky that the PA wanted to discuss the other issues first, Gretzky told them, in his own words, "that I didn't have a role in that at all, that I wasn't there for that. And that's kind of the way it went. There never was real discussion about the cap number."

That doesn't sound like the league was ready to discuss anything other than the cap.

I might of misunderstood, but I took it that the negotiations never got past the NHL explaining the details of their proposals regarding the details (QO's, buyouts, arbitration, etc). I thought that they never even got to the $'s because the of the details were deal-killers from the PA's perspective.

 

[Mess]

Playing replacement hockey without impasse is a very risky tactic as no NHLPA member can cross even if they wanted. That would help keep them unified. The whole idea (for me) behind using replacement players is to let the ones who want to play join a team and therefore create cracks in the union until it is complete chaos and they cave. If you don't give them this opportunity, they might sit an other whole year if need be, and that wouldn't go well for the owners. It's to the league's advantage that replacement hockey only lasts a few weeks at the very most.

And 22M is a lot. There are teams out there struggling with a 30M payroll. Assuming the fanbase has shrunk and replacement hockey won't work as well as regular NHL hockey, a 22M payroll could mean millions more in losses for some franchises. All this will depend on how they would deal with ticket prices. Could they readjust the prices on the fly during the season when more NHLers come back or do they need to set a fix price at the begining of the season and leave it as is for the whole year? Pretty important aspect of the replacement hockey option.

You can look at this slightly different from the NHL side ...

In a NON-NHLPA replacement situation the goal is to starve out the UNION .. The players that would have crossed a picket line in the other IMPASSE scenario will now be putting pressure on Goodenow to get a deal done and have a Union vote to accept and ratify a NHL proposal on the table ..

In the Impasse replacement world .. Players that cross the picket line to play are said to have their union membership revoked and as such their voting rights .. If a bunch of players cross .. you will be left with all the hardliners only on the NHLPA side and then to get a NHL proposal accepted would be a near impossible task ..

Also the first option would allow the NHL to experiment and get FAN opinion on replacement players .. it can always play the IMPASSE and Implementation card at a later date, depending on the success of the first ..

If the NON-NHLPA Replacement option failed then that still does not guarantee that if the attempted the other method it would fail just that FANS want nmaes they know more then unknowns .. If the IMPASSE method did fail in the courts as "GOOD FAITH" or at the Gates then the NHLPA has won and the NHL would be inclined to offer a better CBA proposal then we have seen to date IMO .. IF FANS SAY WE WANT JOE SAKIC and not JOE SMITH in the lineup ..

 

[WHARF1940]

No, it makes sense.

The teams have other fixed costs in addition to player salaries.

If revenues go down, those fixed costs eat up a larger and larger chunk of the owners 45% of revenues, so it is reasonable to reduce the linkage percentage on reduced revenue projections.

Taken to the extreme, if revenues drop below the leagues fixed costs, they could offer a 0% linkage and still lose money.

thanks, that makes sense, saw you said this in the other thread right after I posted this.

 

[on the boards]

Anyone got the link for Burke's interview on CKNW? Did anyone hear Burke's interview/comments and care to give a recap?

 

[AltaHab]

Burke basically said what he's been saying over the past few shows.

Touched on the mistakes the PA has made during the lockout and how much the lockout is costing the owners and their ability to cover costs without sweating it too much. Talked about the last stoppage and how the owners weren't organized and prepared for it...now it's different and the owners have much more resolve and willing to go the distance. Said the PA underestimated the owners this time round. Burke also said he and others drew up a battle plan for the Canucks a few years ago in case a lockout occured now.

 

[on the boards]

Thanks AltaHab-- otb

 

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

Anyone got the link for Burke's interview on CKNW? Did anyone hear Burke's interview/comments and care to give a recap?

http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm

Select Thursday March 17 at 10pm. Advance slider to 14-minute mark.