Healy is a fool.
The major points of the current proposed deal are either the same or worse than the major points of the Feb.2 offer.
There are minor improvements on secondary issues....most of which could have been negotiated at the time, many of which were already given up by the NHL by the time the cancellation/non-cancellation fiasco happened.
Here's how it breaks down:
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html
LEAGUE-WIDE PLAYER COMPENSATION "RANGE"
-- The parties agree that the new Player Compensation System shall ensure that total League-wide Player Compensation in any year of the new CBA will not: (1) be below 53% of the League's revenues, or (2) exceed 55% of the League's revenues.
-- 15% of each Club's Player Payroll will automatically be escrowed every season to ensure compliance with the 55% high-end of the Player Compensation Range.
-- Accounting will be performed at the end of each League Year, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that Clubs have paid no more than the agreed upon 55% of League Revenues.
-- If NHL Clubs as a group spend less than 53% of the League's Revenues, the Clubs will be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive the agreed upon 53% of League Revenues.
This is the Linkage number.
On Feb.2 the offer was 53-55%, and now it seems they're saying 54%...which might be just semantics.
Either way, it's the same.
Also the same is the 15% escrow number.
FLOATING TEAM PAYROLL "RANGE"
-- The parties agree that the applicable Payroll Range for each team in any given year should be representative of the League as a whole, and should not necessarily be engineered either toward the lower payroll teams as a group, or to the higher payroll teams as a group.
-- To effectuate this philosophy, the following Floating Team Payroll "Range" is being proposed.
-- For purposes of establishing the starting Team Payroll Range, each of the top five and bottom five Clubs (ranked in terms of Total Team Payroll for the 2003-04 season) will be entirely excluded from the analysis (Teams 1-5 and Teams 26-30).
-- The low-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately below the League mid-point (Teams 16-25). Using that calculation in Year 1, each Club will be obligated to spend no less than $29.8 million on Team Payroll (or $32 million in total Team Player Compensation).
-- The high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately above the League mid-point (Teams 6-15). Using that calculation in Year 1, no Club will be permitted to spend more than $40 million on Team Payroll (or $42.2 million in total Team Player Compensation).
-- The mid-point of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes in League-wide revenue, with corresponding changes to both the low-end and the high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range.
-- Enhanced and meaningful revenue sharing pursuant to which all 30 Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets) would be provided the ability to afford a League-representative Team Payroll, which would be established at a point within the prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range.
1)
Payroll Cap: $40.0-$42.2 mil
2)
Payroll Floor: $29.8-$32.0 mil
3)
Revenue Sharing: enough to ensure all teams can spend the floor.
The current rumoured proposal has the floor at around $24 mil, and the cap around $38 mil, so, despite what Healy yells about, this is clearly worse for the players now than it was then.
PAYROLL TAX FEATURE
-- The NHL is not in favor of a Payroll Tax, and believes it is neither an essential nor useful element of the type of system we are proposing. Nonetheless, to the extent the Union feels otherwise as they have suggested to us, we are prepared to consider the inclusion of a Payroll Tax element in the context of a Floating Team Payroll Range. Specifically, we propose that, at the option of the Union, a single-tier or dual-tier Payroll Tax structure may be incorporated within (and not exceeding) the Floating Team Payroll Range at thresholds and rates to be negotiated.
They didn't see a reason for it, but they said they'd negotiate a Tax within the framework of the cap if the NHLPA really wanted it.
So if the players "get" this in the current deal, it was already there.
ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT OWNER-PLAYER COUNCIL
-- Establishment of a joint Owner-Player Council (with League and Union representation as well) to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest relating both to business and game-related matters.
Healy tried to play this off as if it was something new that the NHLPA gained, but it was already in there in february.
healy lied.
Now, there are some areas where the NHLPA may have made small gains....but much of these gains had already been gained by the NHLPA before the season was cancelled.
ENTRY LEVEL SYSTEM
-- 4-year mandatory two-way contracts.
-- $850,000 maximum compensation (inclusive of NHL salary, bonuses for games played and signing bonus).
-- Signing bonus maximum in each year of an Entry Level contract of $100,000 for Picks 1-5; $75,000 for Picks 6-15; $50,000 for Picks 16-30; and $40,000 for Picks 31 and up.
-- $250,000 maximum aggregate in individual "A" bonuses (as modified) for all Entry Level Players. (See Attachment A)
-- Individual incentive bonuses tied to final voting for League Awards (formerly individual "B" bonuses) will be paid by the League in accordance with the attached schedule. (See Attachment B)
It looks like the Rookie Cap number is the same now as it was then ($850k).
I wouldn't be surprised to see that they were only for 3 years instead of 4, so the players may gain a bit here. Then again, maybe they don't get it down to 3 years. I haven't heard anything about that yet.
RESTRICTED FREE AGENCY
-- 100% Qualifying Offers for Players earning less than $800,000; 75% (or $800,000, whichever is more) Qualifying Offers for Players earning $800,000 or more.
-- Same Right to Match/Draft Choice Compensation Rules as under the expired CBA.
-- Players and Clubs obligated to reach agreement on terms of a new contract by no later than fourteen (14) days after the opening of Training Camp; failure to do so results in player ineligibility (and unavailability to Club) for balance of the season.
I believe that the current rumours indicate that all qualifying offers will be at 100%....so the NHLPA seems to have been able to "win" here by getting rid of the 75% qualifying offers. Not sure if this is actually the case. though.
Besides, if I remember correctly, the owners had already given up asking for the 75% qualifying offers before the season was cancelled.
SALARY ARBITRATION
-- Entirely mutual (Players and Clubs have identical rights to request arbitration).
-- All Group 2 Players are eligible for Salary Arbitration. (Salary Arbitration is available with respect to all Players who have completed four (4) years in the Entry Level System and are not yet eligible for Unrestricted Free Agency.)
-- Non-requesting party has one-time "deferral right" on the following terms: (1) Player can "defer" Club's election of Salary Arbitration by accepting his Qualifying Offer; (2) Club can "defer" Player's election of Salary Arbitration by signing Player to a one-year contract at 105% of the Player's prior year's salary. This "deferral right" would not be exercisable by either a Player or Club with respect to a Player coming out of the Entry Level System.
-- Non-requesting party can elect term of 1, 2 or 3 years.
-- Both parties to Salary Arbitration proceeding have obligation to submit a list of up to five (5) Player comparables (exclusively from among the universe of contracts entered into by Group 2 Restricted Free Agents) prior to briefing, with each side having the ability to strike up to two (2) comparables from the other side's list.
-- Mutual "Walk-Away Rights" for Clubs and Players as follows: (1) Clubs can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards in return for which Players attain immediate free agency subject only to a Right to Match in favor of the Player's Old Club for contracts entered into for 90% or less than the value of the Award; (2) Players can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards and elect instead to accept a contract for 90% of their Qualifying Offer. "Walk-Away Rights" exercisable only by non-requesting party.
-- League has option to eliminate Salary Arbitration mechanism in its entirety at any time during the term of the Agreement by converting age of eligibility for Group 3 Free Agency to 28.
I haven't heard anything about salary arbitration in the new proposed agreement.
Does this mean that they've already done the tradeoff indicated there, whereby UFA age gets reduced to age 28, with no salary abitration at all?
Not sure.
UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENCY
-- Age for Group 3 Free Agency reduced to age 30 for the 2006-07 season (with corresponding reduction in years of service requirement).
-- Groups 5 and 6 Free Agency eliminated.
It seems as if the Free Agency age will be reduced not only to 30, but also by another year each of the two years after that, down to age 28.
This could be a gain for the NHLPA....unless they sacrificed salary arbitration to get it, which is what the NHL offered in february.
PLAYER CONTRACTS
-- NHL Minimum Salary increased to $300,000 per year.
-- We believe that in order to ensure that Players are compensated in the fairest possible manner, the parties may have a mutual interest in negotiating over the establishment of an NHL Maximum Salary for individual players. No specific amount is being proposed in this regard.
-- Guarantee terms (1/3 or 2/3 for skill; 100% for injury) remain unchanged.
-- Maximum term of 3 years (with term of all existing contracts "grandfathered").
It seems as if the NHLPA has gained 100k in the minimum contracts, from $300k to $400 k.
I have heard nothing about the 3-year max, although I may have heard something about a 5-year max.
This could be a gain for the NHLPA here.
There were also, however, two key parts of the deal which were of great benefit to the players, which I haven't heard of in the new deal, which they may have lost:
UNION REOPENER
-- Unilateral Union right to reopen Agreement after Year 4 (after the 2008-09 season).
They offered the union the right to open up the deal in 4 years.
Not sure if this is still on the table.
PROFIT SHARING
-- The parties agree that the objective of the new CBA is to make the National Hockey League, as a whole, healthy and profitable through the establishment of an economic partnership with its Players.
-- Profit Sharing with the Players on a 50 (Players)/50 (Clubs) basis over and above a League-wide profit threshold to be negotiated.
This was a key offer on the part of the NHL - they offered to split all their profits over a nominal amount 50/50 with the players.
I do not know if this is still on the table.
In short, Healy is lying.
Every single concrete rumour we have heard about the current deal is the same or worse than it was in the Feb.2 offer.