Goodenow letter - Item #7...

[ti-vite]

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

I thought it deserved its own thread, seen it pop up in a few others. Essentially the two sides were more than 6M$ apart, more something like 25-30M$ considering the index year would be the next when revenues were lowest...so the players want linkage but only the upside. If revenue drop by 30% next year then rise back up to regain the pre lockout, the CAP would sit somewhere between 62-67M$...not 49M$

Go figure.

Click to read more...

 

[rmp]

I wonder why Bettman didn't mention this in his reply letter back to Goodenow. It would have been a better rebuttal than his argument about every team being at 49 million, which is pretty weak, considering it's not a realistic scenario.
It's hard to believe he missed it. Maybe the owners were actually considering something like that?

 

[incawg]

Guy from TSN just asked this...

LOL @ Bob's response:

"You can call it linkage, we call it indexing."

:lol :lol :lol

 

[ti-vite]

Guy from TSN just asked this...

LOL @ Bob's response:

"You can call it linkage, we call it indexing."

:lol :lol :lol

Yeah, I almost crapped my pants. Hilarious. :lol

 

[Luc Labelle]

I love it, a number of the pro-player analysts have been stating that impasse route is out the window because both sides were on the cap philosopy. Except for the fact this imfamous clause #7 will reinforce the fact that the players made no movement towards a cost certain system to establish a healthy league. This clause makes the last NHLPA offer worse than the previous CBA.

If the league loses 30% revenues next year, then at the point at which the NHL regains their current revenue levels the indexing would move all thresholds upward by 42%. The NHLPA range for salaries would become 35.5 to 69.5 with a soft ceiling of 76.5 million. This would be absolute financial suicide for the NHL. RIDICULOUS!!!!

 

[rwilson99]

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

I thought it deserved its own thread, seen it pop up in a few others. Essentially the two sides were more than 6M$ apart, more something like 25-30M$ considering the index year would be the next when revenues were lowest...so the players want linkage but only the upside. If revenue drop by 30% next year then rise back up to regain the pre lockout, the CAP would sit somewhere between 62-67M$...not 49M$

Go figure.

The index makes the PA offer the sickest joke of all. Under the PA model, the soft cap would be at $49 and a hard cap would be at 53.9 Million.

The index would apply to 06-07 revenues, and the LINKAGE in the PA proposal would look like this...

REV Soft Hard

2.1B 70% 77%
2.0B 74% 81%
1.9B 77% 85%
1.8B 82% 90%
1.7B 86% 95%
1.6B 92% 101%

In other words... with a 20% drop in league revenue, commesurate with the drop experienced after the 94 baseball strike, the league would have been tied for 6 years to a hard cap of over 100% of hockey revenues.

That's not a meaningful salary cap, it's bargaining in bad faith.

DO THE MATH.