Guess the NHL's Proposal

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by trahans99, Dec 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trahans99

    trahans99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
    What do you think Gary will include in his counter proposal? Will it inlcude cost certainty or cap? If it does the season is over and he knows it. IMO we need a hard cap or very stiff luxury tax.

    IMO the proposal if it doesn't include a cap (probably will) heres my proposal:

    1) luxury tax needs to be much stricter
    $35-39m .75 for every $1over
    40-47m 1:1
    47-54m 1.50:1
    54-60m 2:1
    Hard Cap at $60m

    2) Salary rollback: i'd offer 15-20% to show negotiation on part of NHL ... if they ask for 24% on top of the stiffer lux tax players might walk away

    3) Qualifying offers: should only require 50% of current salary (for the players who have really underperformed)

    4) Rookie salary cap is fine

    Again i'd like to see a cap but if they ask tomorrow for it the season may be over.

    What would you propose
     
  2. Taranis_24

    Taranis_24 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Home Page:
    trahans99 - don't believe you are to far off, but think this will be the second deal (about a week from now), the offer tomorrow will be for a cap in the range of 38-40M. The NHL should stick with the 24% rollback and not offer less, but be prepared to accept less. Let the NHLPA counter to drop it to 15-20 range to allow them to save some face with the players.
     
  3. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    My proposal to end the dispute:

    10% escrow on player salaries, used to pay owners is salaries exceed say 55% of league revnue, any remaining funds go back to the players.

    Anual re-indexation of player salaries to the 55% of of league revenue. So, if player salaries the previous year were 57% of league revenue, a 3.5% salary rollback would be enacted. The same will work if player salaries are lower than 55%.

    Qualifying Offers should be 100% of last years salary OR taking the player to arbitration if overpaid.

    Rookie cap of $850,000 with max that in bonuses is good

    Progressive Luxury tax on Salaries above $42 Million . Take the PA's idea of making it more severe for conscutive years paying the tax. For example, first year over $42 mil is a 20% Tax, second consecutive year is a 50% tax, third consecutive year is 100% tax, and then add on an extra 50% for every year after that. This allows teams to keep a player around one extra year (maybe 2 if things are going well) but truly forces them to get back under the tax threshold occasionally to avoid paying horrendous amounts of Luxury tax.

    Also, the luxury tax threshold shouldn't be a HARD figure, but should be linked to league revenues. $42 Million is about 60% of league revenues if every team was at that amount, $45 million is about 62% or so. Either works.
     
  4. fan mao rong

    fan mao rong Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    port royal , pa
    Home Page:
    Yeah, I don't think the League needs to offer to give stuff back, as the other side doesn't seem shy about demanding what they want. I also don't believe that the players will stop negotiating if everything is not to their liking as far as a cost containment mechanism, as I believe they want to play this season and onward and it is in their interest to continue negotiating. I can't predict what the offer would be, but , me, I might do this. I say I accept Union's offer, for the 1st 3 years of their offer, contingent upon their acceptance of a 9 year extension of the offer, with a luxury tax starting at 30 million dollars with a rate of 150% for overages and the other issues adjusted to management satisfaction. Since the Union proposal only covers the 1st 3 years for the rate of compensation of the rookie cap, it is really only complete for the 1st 3 years, so I accept the 1st 3 years as a transition phase. Accept the 9 year extension at our rate and we got a deal. That's what I might do.
     
  5. trahans99

    trahans99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
    I like your thinking, its all a numbers game. As long as either side doesn't get offended and call the season off we will have some hope.
     
  6. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    A 150% luxury tax??? WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?

    all teams in the league generate at least 15 million profit if the team payrolls are 30 million. The best teams would generate 60 or 70 million in profit. With NO REVENUE SHARING!

    What makes you think the players accept something even remotely close to this?
     
  7. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,756
    Likes Received:
    1,326
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    The proposal will be a hard cap, of course.

    The only thing I'm really interested in is whether they raise the level from the $35 million that's been bandied about revently.
     
  8. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,564
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    My guess...it will be a joint hard cap proposal of $40 mil with the goal of luxury tax/hard cap system. The tax will start around $35 mil and get harsh above $40 mil. There will be a hard cap at $50-55 mil. All thresholds will be linked to percentage of revenues. Arbitration will be seriously revamped (owners will go for elimination). entry level stuff will come close to being as in the NHLPA proposal. Drop dead date for free agents to sign or they don't play...period.

    No rollback or only a 5-10% one.

    I think they will very much show the NHLPA they are dead serious in all of this and aren't just doing it for ***** and giggles. It will be on the NHLPA's shoulders to make a deal on the leagues terms now or later.
     
  9. fan mao rong

    fan mao rong Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    port royal , pa
    Home Page:
    Where do you get the so called profit assessments? Some study which gave total revenue and then deducted the payroll numbers? There is a great deal more of expense operations than that. Concensus has the League made around 2 Billion in revenue last season which if equally divided would average to around 70 million gross per team. But you claim the big teams ( say 6 of them) can get PROFITS of 70 million, when they all have payrolls around 70 million? So, say 6 teams, have revenue of 140 million each. This takes up around 840 million right there, which leaves around 1.16 Billion for the remaining 24 teams revenue or around 44 million gross per team. So if their payroll is around 30 million that leaves only 14 million per team which leaves out all operating expenses. So there is not a possible 15 million in profits. I would say operating expenses are probably close to salaries in actual costs. No, I don't believe the Players would accept that suggestion of 150% tax on payrolls above 30 million. But that is what should be offered and I believe they will accept something close to that.
     
  10. chara

    chara Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cap, cap and more cap.

    It's the only solution that Bettman is authorized to propose. It's the only solution that pins each team to a specfic payroll figure and creates a competitive balance across all 30 clubs. Bettman and Co. are committed to 30 viable franchises, increasing the net worth of those organizations and attracting future investors/owners to existing teams or new ones.

    A luxury tax won't work, even if it $1 for each $1 over $31M for example. As example, rich teams like the Leafs, Red Wings, Stars could set aside $75M for payroll. If that means $53M paid out to personal and $22M pay out to a luxury tax so be it. But how does a team like Nashville or Columbus compete when they put out their $28M squad against the Leafs, Red Wings, Stars, etc?

    Small markets teams know this and even with luxury tax payments, they would be years from competing. Time they just don't have in non-hockey markets, where the growth of the game is imperative to the prosperity of the league. I could care less about this but the majority of owners do and they are running the show and pulling Bettman's strings.

    I would be absolutely shocked if the league didn't come back with a cap with their counter proposal.
     
  11. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,602
    Likes Received:
    1,526
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    I'd see teams spending $60m, $65m maximum. The Rangers lost money last year. Lets say the Rangers had $75m and lost $13m, I could see than cutting back to a total of $61m ($46m payroll and $15m tax) and breaking about even. Its one thing to lose money paying for players who supposedly improve the team, its another to lose money paying for tax.
     
  12. Jets4Life

    Jets4Life Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,634
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    149
    Occupation:
    occupied
    Location:
    Hellebuyck County
    I wish I knew what kind of CBA the NFL implemented. I would just copy it for the NHL. If Green Bay can be competetive in the richest and most sucessful league in the world, they are obviously doing something right.
     
  13. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,732
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Canada
    the league wont negotiate a lux tax because ''apparently'' if they do , their supposed goal of busting the union / impasse wont work .
     
  14. quat

    quat winsome, loathsome

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    artist
    Location:
    Victoria BC
    Home Page:
    What ever the NHL comes back with, the PA will reject it, Linden will act indignant and suprised and say " I just don't understand?" , Bob will flex his veins and his outrage, and then they will come back with a counter offer, etc, etc... until a deal is done.
     
  15. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,564
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    Yep except you forgot one thing...the players will first realize that collectively they may lose 1.4 billion that they can never get back if the season is cancelled while the owners will collectively lose essentially 0 dollars given the war chest they have. They'll figure out who has the hammer in the negotiations...will they figure it out to late and continue to play this game of chicken so that a season can't be salvaged?
     
  16. Poignant Discussion*

    Poignant Discussion* I tell it like it is

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Self Employed
    Location:
    Gatineau, QC

    Think again

    Lets say the NHL season is cancelled. The Leafs for one lose 6 million dollars, last year they made somewhere around 16 Million therefore its a 22 million dollar loss for the Leafs.

    If the season is cancelled you can decrease the value of the teams in the STRONG markets by 10-15% and in the weak markets 20-30%. Then you can decrease the value of the buildings the teams own by 10-15%.

    The players gave up 24% of their salaries when in fact it was the owners FAULT for spending crazy money in the first place and now thats not good enough. Luke Richardson basicly said today if they reject it and come back with a cap you can say goodbye the the NHL and he is right

    If the owners can't survive with a compromise then force them to sell to someone that will. There are alot of folks in Edmonton that have money that could actually spend money on a good team instead of crying poor all the time. There is a market in Houston just DYING for a hockey team. Actually there are possibly 4-6 GOOD markets ready for the NHL and most of them have a hockey history.

    The owners are proving what a joke they are yet again. When the players compromise by giving 1 quarter of their salaries up just to be able to play hockey again and the owners say its not enough..well its crap and we all know it. Maybe the owners after dragging this out for so long should offer tickets for 25% off and see how "meaningless" the sum of money really is

    :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2004
  17. Sanderson

    Sanderson Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Home Page:
    Well, the same is true for the players.
    If they don't want to play for a salary that is up to ten times higher than they could get elsewhere, there will be enough other players who would love to do so.

    Keeping the same system and push the salaries back three or four years is certainly not even close to being a compromise.

    Just because someone makes concessions, doesn't mean they go in the right direction. If the system doesn't work, you chose a new one. It would be foolish to make the same mistake twice.
     
  18. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    I wish that the deluded Winnipeg fans that think their city is an NHL market would either return to reality or just go away.
     
  19. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,564
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    Yes last year the leafs made x amount. With the warchest they will only breakeven. The point is they will not lose money in not operating this season. They may not make it but they won't lose it either. Other teams will lose less even without the warchest. That's the point. It isn't the owners losing big money with no hockey it's the players. if it was the other way around there would be no reason for the lockout.

    Luke Richardson said this Jermemy Roenick says that. It's all bluster with no substance. The players have no where else to play for such salaries now or that would exist under a reasonable cap. Sure some can quite easily retire given the money they've made. Of course that just proves the point those players don't really care about hockey in the first place and don't have the passion for it anymore.

    No one said the 24% wasn't significant. Of course it was. But it also never addressed the issues that needed to be addressed and the league wants to be addressed. It was mostly smoke and mirrors with very few players under contract past the next season or two. That's the point. It doesn't matter the ownres were at fault...they recognize this and want a system in place that prevents this. Independent sources have number crunched and figured that the players make that money back and then some EASILY under the 6 year term they proposed.

    There are 4-6 NHL ready markets? Sure there are which is a stretch. There just aren't 4-6 possible owners willing to take on a team under the old CBA system. There might be people in Edmonton with money but you aren't going to get those people to purposely LOSE money for long.

    What is so hard to understand or accept that the owners have flat out offered the players a set share of the business (50-60%). A share set up in other sports. A share set up in many businesses. If the league grows so do the players salaries. How is that a bad thing? If the league does not the salaries shrink as opposed to massive layoffs you'd see in other industries. Damn the NHL.

    Have the owners never said they won't compromise on issues? Absolutely not. BUt why does it always come down to the owners not compromising? The players won't either for goodness sakes. Cap vs no cap. The difference is that in order to make any sort of money in their careers and not serve burgers as Wendy's the players need the NHL. Because the NHL is hurting and the players have finally acknowledged that by essentially admitting the LEvitt numbers are correct the NHL holds the cards not the players. It is the players that must make the capitulation on the key issue to fix the league. A key issue that isn't even scary or evil or suffocating. A key issue which simply allocates a good chunk of revenues to the players...not an amount that exploits them.
     
  20. rt

    rt Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    62,603
    Likes Received:
    5,687
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    County Cork
    Small markets are already competitive and with luxury tax payments, they will be more competative.
     
  21. quat

    quat winsome, loathsome

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    artist
    Location:
    Victoria BC
    Home Page:
    Great post.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"