Frustration with NHLPA...

[ladybugblue]

I don't know about the rest of you but am so frustrated. I know a lot of people blame the current labor problems on the NHL and owners and some people blame the NHLPA. It really doesn't matter the NHL and owners may have made the problem by offering outrageous salaries but they are trying to fix it without any players losing their jobs. Why don't the players look at this like a regular business? If the company I work for had 75% or even 70% of the revenue going to salary they would slash staff...trust me they do this all the time. What frustrates me is that the NHLPA thinks anything tied to Revenues is a salary cap I say this is complete bull. In the movie business if actors etc said to the producers I want our salaries to be 65-70% of revenues they would be laughed at. And lets face it hockey is entertainment and a business pure and simple.

This is my proposal for a solution:
Every player has a base salary of $1 million to $2.5 million depending on age of the player. This would be league wide. Coupled with this would be performance based incentives such as a bonus if you reach 50 goals in the year etc. and bonuses would be the same league wide. The bonuses would be tied to the revenues of either their respective team or the league (either way could work). The bonus would be a percentage of the revenues (but within reason). For example:
5 players under 25 and they get paid $5 million
10 players between 25-32 they get paid $20 million
5 players over 32 get paid $12.5 million

Total base salary is $37.5 million

Now say the revenue for a team is around $58.3 million (this is just the number that the league provided in terms of revenue divided by 30 teams...I am sure it would be different but for arguments purpose...) and say you are the Tampa Bay Lightning and you are Brad Richards or Martin St. Louis say the bonus for winning the Stanley cup is 1% and the Con Smythe is 2% as well as the Hart Trophy, Art Ross. The two players would be making $3.749 million and $4.915 million and the team salary at the very least would be $58.488 million.

Now this doesn't leave much room for profit but say the owners does not have hand out huge salary increases the following year because they are set and the revenues increases by 20% because the sell out more games and get a higher paying local TV deal because of their success. The revenues would be $69.96 million and say the same thing happened the salaries would be for the two players $4.0988 million and $5.498 million and team costs would be $62.6856.

Now if the team failed to make the playoffs and the revenue only increased to 10% (no playoffs) then the owners would have a healthy profit that year.

I know this will be completely shot down (by poster and the like) and the the players would NEVER go for it but this would solve two problems:
1. Salaries seem to be every going up but revenues are not increasing as quickly.
2. The product on the ice needs to get much better and this would force players to work hard for the money they earn. The more success as a team or player the more money they would get.


Either way we know nothing will work with the two sides right now it is just so frustrating. Either they have to lower salaries or at least 10 teams need to fold and the NHLPA loses 300 jobs for its members. I hope the members know this may very well happen. I don't like this idea either why don't the players and owners work together to get the league healthy and at least watched on TV in the U.S. the ratings say it all down here...Poker and about 10 other sports events are more popular...this is part of the problem.

Click to read more...

 

[GKJ]

Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place? I think they are being rather generous to offer a 5% roll back on salaries being that it is a binding contract, if the owners were to come up to guys in the middle of the season and tell them they weren't going to pay them 5% of their paycheck, there would be hellfire and damnnation.


Maybe the owners, who for 4 years knew this day was coming, should have just said "no thank you" to the high priced players. Maybe they would have spent less money putting together a team (Minnesota, Calgary) instead of a good collection of players (Rangers, Washington)

 

[Rick Middleton]

Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place?

Why should the owners continue to work within the set market? Why can't they simply offer less? Because the owners are the root of the problem. Not all owners, some owners. Those who would be willing to outspend their competition regardless of the damage it could do to the league. So those with smaller pocketbooks are trying to enforce some semblance of a salary system on the ownership.

 

[GKJ]

Why should the owners continue to work within the set market? Why can't they simply offer less? Because the owners are the root of the problem. Not all owners, some owners. Those who would be willing to outspend their competition regardless of the damage it could do to the league. So those with smaller pocketbooks are trying to enforce some semblance of a salary system on the ownership.

The other owners are the smart ones. The owners set the market because the owners gave Keith Tkachuk $11 million. Keith Tkachuk didn't give Keith Tkachuk $11 million. Bobby Holik didn't give Bobby Holik a 5-year $45 million contract.

 

[degroat*]

The other owners are the smart ones. The owners set the market because the owners gave Keith Tkachuk $11 million. Keith Tkachuk didn't give Keith Tkachuk $11 million. Bobby Holik didn't give Bobby Holik a 5-year $45 million contract.

First of all, NOBODY gave Tkachuk $11M. Tkachuk's contract averaged out to $9M per year.

Secondly, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS AT FAULT.

It doesn't matter at all.

What matters is getting the league to a point where the owners can all be profitable.

 

[WrightOn]

Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place?

Cause they are a part of the league that will fold if they don't. They have an obligation to care and do what is best/necessary for hockey.

Yes they do.

If that's a problem (it apparently is), screw em.

If someone paid me 5 million when I'm worth 3 million, and then realized they were hugely mistaken financially; I would a) shake my head in mocking frustration.....and eventually, b) learn to deal with/help enable the consequence ....OR be outta work.

I have hopes that many players feel this way. In fact, maybe the majority DO see it this way..........

I don't advocate any of the proposed "deals" necesarily.....but I'm fuming over the "its not our fault" response...... As Stich said...IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Stand on the playyard and cry about it some more NHLPA! It's now your fault if a season doesn't occur. Just as much as it is an owners' problem.

 

[GKJ]

It's now your fault if a season doesn't occur. Just as much as it is an owners' problem.

I don't doubt this. I just fault the owners for sitting there and they they're not moving until the NHLPA agrees to a $31 million salary cap. I find this absurd. Just as absurd as saying they will never accept a luxury tax.

 

[no13matssundin]

The thing that did it for me was the fact that the NHLPA has been screaming in the media how theyre wanting to "negotiate"... then they bring this "proposal" to the Owners which has them raising the luxury tax they themselves offered by 10 Million?!?!?!

I mean, they scream "we dont want a cap"... theyre ALL FRIKKIN' MILLIONAIRES!!!! The NFL has a Cap, The NBA has a Cap... The NHL HAS TO HAVE A CAP!

I mean, how is THAT negotiating? They are greedy! The PA is greedy! And I hope to goodness that the Owners break the Union. Lockout for 5 years if you have to.... BREAK THE GREEDY PLAYERS UNION!

 

[WrightOn]

I don't doubt this. I just fault the owners for sitting there and they they're not moving until the NHLPA agrees to a $31 million salary cap. I find this absurd. Just as absurd as saying they will never accept a luxury tax.

Absurd it is. I agree with you.
Believe me, I don't find the owner's less at fault in these meetings.

 

[txpd]

Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place? I think they are being rather generous to offer a 5% roll back on salaries being that it is a binding contract, if the owners were to come up to guys in the middle of the season and tell them they weren't going to pay them 5% of their paycheck, there would be hellfire and damnnation.


Maybe the owners, who for 4 years knew this day was coming, should have just said "no thank you" to the high priced players. Maybe they would have spent less money putting together a team (Minnesota, Calgary) instead of a good collection of players (Rangers, Washington)

why should players give back the money that onwers agreed to pay them? they should not...period.

why should owners not be allowed to stop paying that money? they should not...period.

the problem with your point of view, "the owners offered the money" is that you don't allow for the owners to say that was a mistake and we can't do that anymore.
the alternative is the collapse of the league because teams are just no longer viable.

Yes, maybe the owners should have said no to the high priced players. in fact many have. Boston has tried that. In a great hockey market they rank 22nd, 21st, 25th and 22nd in attendance over the last 4 years. they refuse to pay Bill Guerin $8.5m per or Jason Allison $7m per and the fans say the Bruins are unwilling to do what it takes to win and they walk away. Thanx for mentioning Calgary who struggled thru 7 straight years of missing the playoffs and like Anaheim, Carolina and Minnesota who had low budget playoff success are just as likely to miss the playoffs in the very next season again and never reap any financial reward from a good season. Your attempt to use Calgary and Minnesota as examples of what should be done by lower income markets glosses nicely over the truth. in the last 8 seasons Calgary and Minnesota have made the playoffs a grand total of twice. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, and St Louis like most of the high dollar teams have never missed the playoffs during that period of time. The two are completely beyond compare and your attempt to do it is weak. You use the Capitals as an example of a "collection of players" rather than a team, yet while they have missed the playoffs, they never missed the playoffs in consecutive seasons, much less 7 in a row. Show me a low budget "team" that has any kind of a consistant level of success over that 7 year period.

 

[txpd]

Let me add this to your "collection of players" concept. you compare the capitals and rangers in that comment. they are in fact not remotely the same situation.
The rangers use their financial advantage to raid both the free agent market and the financial problems of other teams(salary dump deals like the kovalev trade) to get top players. The capitals on the other hand were largely a home grown team.
The Capitals were not a collection of players. There were as many or more home grown players on that team as any in the league, its just that many had matured and many had earned star status. in 02-03 the capitals regularly dressed a lineup with Kolzig(draft), Witt(draft), Gonchar(draft), Klee(draft), Eminger(draft), Johansson(trade/franchise record for career games played), Bondra(draft), Konowalchuk(draft), Halpern(undrafted free agent), Sutherby(draft). of those ten players combined only one season(johansson's rookie season) was played with a different team. Thats half the game roster. Tampa Bay had 4 home grown players last season. 4. You dump the Capitals in the Rangers catagory because they signed one $5m free agent in its entire history and traded for one superstar player.
By the way...Look at the Tampa Bay payroll. If they sign St Louis and Andreychuk, they will be within a new contract to Lecavalier or Richards of having a payroll where at the same $50m level as the Capitals had.

 

[GKJ]

You dump the Capitals in the Rangers catagory because they signed one $5m free agent in its entire history and traded for one superstar player.
By the way...Look at the Tampa Bay payroll.

They also signed Jagr to an $11M/yr. contract, brought in Nylander, Zubrus, they spent an incredible amount of money and had one of the higher payrolls in the league.

 

[guinness]

They also signed Jagr to an $11M/yr. contract, brought in Nylander, Zubrus, they spent an incredible amount of money and had one of the higher payrolls in the league.

And some of the worst losses. As teams like the Rags, Flyers, Wings, Avs, Stars, and Blues all prove, spending money doesn't guarantee success year after year. Sooner or later the wheels are going to fall off and the team has to start back at square one.

 

[Seachd]

Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place? I think they are being rather generous to offer a 5% roll back on salaries being that it is a binding contract, if the owners were to come up to guys in the middle of the season and tell them they weren't going to pay them 5% of their paycheck, there would be hellfire and damnnation.

I don't think it's that generous, because the instant that contract is up, the players invaribly demand a 20-200% pay raise.

I'm also frustrated with the players. It's painfully obvious they don't care one iota about the fans, which is a shame, because these guys owe their careers to us. This is pretty clear because: 1) They understand the problem, and 2) They don't want to do anything about it.

Why should the NHL budge from it's position while the NHLPA is allowed to sit still? If there's no hockey this season, I'm going to put the blame on who deserves it most from me: the players.

 

[habitual_hab]

As far as I know, here's what the NHLPA has offered the NHL owners:

a five-percent giveback to the league on the full value of all existing contracts; changes to the Entry Level System both in terms of a cap and percentage of the cap that can be paid in signing bonus; a revenue-share system from on a pool collected from an aggregate of payroll luxury tax, regular-season and playoff gate taxes and revenue tax that would be distributed to clubs meeting qualifying criteria, including attendance performance." Furthermore, the NHLPA was willing to address such issues as salary arbitration and qualifying offers.

To simplify the proposal further, the players are willing to give back nearly $65 million in payroll every season. They're willing to address the problems with bonus clauses circumventing the rookie salary cap. They're willing to address revenue sharing to assist smaller market clubs to better compete with their big market peers, and they're willing to consider changes to salary arbitration and how much a team must spend to qualify their restricted free agents.

link

Looks to me like the NHLPA is negotiating in good faith but the owners insist on installing a hard salary cap or no go. IMO, Bettman and the owners are not negotiating in good faith at all and the 2004-2005 season might be the first time in a long time that there are no Stanley Cup playoffs.

(After an alleged $300-million in losses the NHL gives Bettman a new contract until 2008(?). If Bettman was the CEO of any other corp. he'd be out on the street. IMO, the owners are the architects of their problems [Holik, Jagr, Sakic, Tkachuk, Yashin, etc. contracts, Bettman's expansion & promises of investment returns that turned out to be Nasdaq-like and the evaporation of US TV deals] and are trying to force the NHLPA to bail them out.)

 

[GKJ]

Why should the NHL budge from it's position while the NHLPA is allowed to sit still? If there's no hockey this season, I'm going to put the blame on who deserves it most from me: the players.

Why should the NHLPA move from their stance while the NHL is allowed to sit still? If there's no hockey this season, I'm going to put the blame on who deserves it most from me: the owners.

 

[justapantherfan]

I agree. I think all players should have a base salary and then bonus' or incentives to earn what they are worth. He if a player signs that huge contract and sucks it's not like they can redo his contract for less. They should earn what they get paid.

 

[Russian Fan]

I agree. I think all players should have a base salary and then bonus' or incentives to earn what they are worth. He if a player signs that huge contract and sucks it's not like they can redo his contract for less. They should earn what they get paid.

Do you realize what you said is blame the player for a contract that a GM give to him & that GM was hired by an OWNER ???

 

[Seachd]

Looks to me like the NHLPA is negotiating in good faith but the owners insist on installing a hard salary cap or no go. IMO, Bettman and the owners are not negotiating in good faith at all and the 2004-2005 season might be the first time in a long time that there are no Stanley Cup playoffs

How is it good faith if their most recent offer is worse than the one 15 months ago (which was a tremendous laugher in itself)? They're just jerking the NHL around, and it's pretty obvious they're not serious about anything.

The NHL is trying to get a deal that would be good for the league, the fans, the sport itself, and also very fair to the players.

The players want a deal for themselves. That's it. It won't help the fans, and salaries will continue to increase to where they don't deserve to be. They're suffering from Al MacInnis syndrome. Just because pro atheletes in other sports make trillions a year doesn't mean they do. And there are very clear reasons for that.

 

[Seachd]

Do you realize what you said is blame the player for a contract that a GM give to him & that GM was hired by an OWNER ???

How is that relevant?

Okay, some of the owners messed up. How does that automatically turn the goal of the new CBA into screwing over the fans and driving the league into the ground?

Shouldn't they be trying to fix it?

 

[habitual_hab]

Why should the NHLPA move from their stance while the NHL is allowed to sit still? If there's no hockey this season, I'm going to put the blame on who deserves it most from me: the owners.

I agree 100%. The owners want a hard cap and aren't willing to move from that stance while ignoring the fact that the current problems in the NHL are all of their making.


High salaries are the players' union's fault? Players' salaries are determined by the market and the owners are the ones who write the paychecks (Bobby Holik???).

 

[habitual_hab]

How is it good faith if their most recent offer is worse than the one 15 months ago (which was a tremendous laugher in itself)? They're just jerking the NHL around, and it's pretty obvious they're not serious about anything.

The NHL is trying to get a deal that would be good for the league, the fans, the sport itself, and also very fair to the players.

The players want a deal for themselves. That's it. It won't help the fans, and salaries will continue to increase to where they don't deserve to be. They're suffering from Al MacInnis syndrome. Just because pro atheletes in other sports make trillions a year doesn't mean they do. And there are very clear reasons for that.

Do you work for a living? Do you have a job? I own my own business and pay my employees a decent wage and could never, ever sit down with them when negotiating their salaries and state to them with a straight face that due to my own stupidity I'm not making enough money and want to impose a cap on their wages - which is exactly what the NHL owners are doing.

You want a salary cap? Well, a profit cap is just as justified.

 

[Russian Fan]

How is that relevant?

Okay, some of the owners messed up. How does that automatically turn the goal of the new CBA into screwing over the fans and driving the league into the ground?

Shouldn't they be trying to fix it?

it's very relevant, you blame the players for what the OWNERS did & you expect the players to fix what the owners did & you think it's the players screwing the fan for the non-negotiation of the CBA.

By the way it's not only ''some'' owner, it's a majority of owner who messed up & they won't fix the problem by putting a gun with water in it & saying : ''IT'S A HARD CAP or nothing ! ''.

 

[Seachd]

Do you work for a living? Do you have a job? I own my own business and pay my employees a decent wage and could never, ever sit down with them when negotiating their salaries and state to them with a straight face that due to my own stupidity I'm not making enough money and want to impose a cap on their wages - which is exactly what the NHL owners are doing.

There's one major problem with that. This isn't the real world. This is professional sports. It's different. And they know that coming in. The draft is one example. So normal jobs can't be used as a comparison.

You want a salary cap? Well, a profit cap is just as justified.

Well, if that profit cap is set at zero, there would still be teams under it, including teams that sell out every game. Doesn't that suggest a bit of a problem?

 

[Jag68Sid87]

The problem is if an owner doesn't go out on the market and spend, fans label them as cheap. Fans also tend to respond by NOT buying tickets to the games. Agents call these cheapskate owners out, even--or at least praise those that actually pay. An owner that doesn't spend is ALWAYS deemed cheap and unwilling to pay for a winner. Those are terms ALWAYS used by the NHLPA, player agents and players themselves. THEN, if they do spend they're labeled as dumb--eventually--when it's revealed just how badly the owner overpaid for said player. So, the owners really can't win, can they?

Look at the situation in L.A. If the Kings re-sign Palffy for more than market value, they appease their fans but they hurt the rest of the industry. If they let him walk away, fans will NOT be happy at all but at least the Kings will be doing the right thing, from a financial point of view at the very least. At the end of the day, the fans' perspective should be what counts most of all.

As far as a luxury tax goes, it's being proven in baseball that it DOES NOT work. Steinbrenner doesn't give a rat's behind about spending whatever it takes to keep a winning team on the field. The NHL's answer to Steinbrenner is Mike Ilitch. Do you think Ilitch would blink an eye about spending a little more if it meant adding more pieces to his puzzle? No chance. Luxury tax doesn't provide enough limits, which doesn't add to the strategic process of building a winning team. Furthermore, a luxury tax that doesn't come with a minimum would not force teams to spend at least a certain amount--which is also bad for business in the grand scheme of things.

Whether the solution is a cap on payrolls, or a cap on individual salaries, something is required to help the system out. Because fans demand competitive teams but the current revenue situation in the league is mediocre, at best. Not all owners know HOW to win, but they all WANT to win--even Boston.

The longer the players insist on no salary cap, the longer it's going to take. Putting more caps on the rookies is not going to cut it. In fact, I find it absurd that people have a problem with the bonus Rick Nash EARNED in 2003-04, but don't have a problem with the salary John LeClair stole this past season. The players want to get paid for time served, but THAT's what gets the market out of whack as much as anything else.

If the highest salaries belonged to the BEST players in the league, REGARDLESS of age and experience, the league would be thriving right now.

end of rant.