Huge News!!! Nhlpa Offers Cap

[Lady Rhian]

Philosophical Disagreements!

Didn't say the other "D" word.

Very smart of you. Love that avatar.

This is like watching a train wreck over and over again on replay. Good news, bad news, philosophical differences, cap, no cap, and repeat, repeat, repeat.........

 

[futurcorerock]

A certain blogger will come out with his "inside information" shortly.

 

[TonySCV]

I'm not optimistic in the least. If they compromise at $46 million, it's still too high. The league better fix this right, and be able to maintain the prosperity of the league for the long-term.

I don't want to be a pessimist, but we've heard so many times over the last few months that things were about to turn around, only to fall apart hours later.

I'll believe this when it actually happens.

What if it's $46MM with a stiff luxury tax starting at $36MM? - a soft cap and hard cap hybrid system? Wouldn't that also be a compromise? So little of the details are known to just blindly say that $46MM is too high. If there are enough punitive penalties and taxes in place (a payroll tax range, limits on per player spending, arbitration restrictions, etc.), it could be attractive. Heck a $50MM cap could be made attractive if the right level of restrictions are put in place.

- T

 

[Tuggy]

It's so hard to believe what is actually going on

I mean the owner's move off linkage and the players agree to a cap (albeit a very high one), should be interesting to see what happens tommorrow. But if this lockout has taught me anything, it's not to get my hopes up.

 

[jcab2000]

Just imagine how Pissed/Depressed all of us are gonna be if they in fact reach NO agreement at all. I don't even want to think about it.

That's why they usually say "no progress has been made" after meeting for 18 hours. Right.

 

[wazee]

At the end of the day, the winner of this labour dispute will be easy to spot. Is revenue defined and are the players allocated a fixed percentage of those revenues? That is a cap on salaries. Tom

Spin. Spin. Spin.

Sounds to me like the players have moved from 'We will never play under a cap' to 'We accept a cap so long as it isn't linked to revenue'. Funny how much this sounds like a post a made a week or so ago.

If the owner's get a hard cap in the 40-50M range, they should be dancing in the streets. If the number is right, it doesn't matter if it is linked or not. It will still stop salary inflation dead in its tracks...barring any major loopholes, of course.

 

[Tuggy]

Spin. Spin. Spin.

Sounds to me like the players have moved from 'We will never play under a cap' to 'We accept a cap so long as it isn't linked to revenue'. Funny how much this sounds like a post a made a week or so ago.

If the owner's get a hard cap in the 40-50M range, they should be dancing in the streets. If the number is right, it doesn't matter if it is linked or not. It will still stop salary inflation dead in its tracks...barring any major loopholes, of course.

Exactly, it seems like the owners have the players right where they want them. While the players offered a cap of 52 million, I am sure the owners can get that down to maybe 45-46. It would have to be a hard cap of course.

 

[Cloned]

How about that franchise player exemption idea people were throwing around a while back? Could that fit somewhere in this?

 

[Wetcoaster]

They just said $52 MM cap offer, with NHL countering with $40 MM.

This is a done deal.

Other way around.

According to CP the NHL offer and counteroffer by the NHLPA were as follows:

Quote:
The No. 1 issue that has plagued the NHL lockout went out the window Monday night when the NHL Players' Association offered a deal that included a $52-million US salary cap, The Canadian Press has learned. (The counter offer included the 24% rollback).

The surprising move was made by NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin during his secret meeting with NHL executive vice-president Bill Daly in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Daly began the process Monday by offering a $40-million salary cap without "linkage" - a fixed link between player costs and league revenues, which has long been the centrepiece of the NHL's bid for cost certainty.
http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html?id=cf6b4907-3086-443c-b4ff-a9fd5c51c668

Now it justs looks to be a question of numbers once linkage was off the table. Whether there is enough time to get a deal done is another issue..

 

[Tuggy]

The surprising move was made by NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin during his secret meeting with NHL executive vice-president Bill Daly in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Daly began the process Monday by offering a $40-million salary cap without "linkage" - a fixed link between player costs and league revenues, which has long been the centrepiece of the NHL's bid for cost certainty.
http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html?id=cf6b4907-3086-443c-b4ff-a9fd5c51c668

Now it justs looks to be a question of numbers once linkage was off the table. Whether there is enough time to get a deal done is another issue..

Wouldn't it be a PR nightmare if they couldn't get this done? Since they are so close (it would appear) and everyone seems to know it?

I am starting to get excited but I think we all need to be cautiously optimisitc here

 

[mudcrutch79]

Now it justs looks to be a question of numbers once linkage was off the table. Whether there is enough time to get a deal done is another issue..

There's too much at stake not to get something done once they've agreed on a basic format. At this point, I think we can be sure that it's going to be a cap evironment, without linkage. Fine. There can be movement in dumping a salary floor or lowering it drastically, working in some revenue sharing, and moving the cap down somewhat.

This then becomes an issue of how much rope the owners will have to hang themselves. It's clearly not going to be the dummy proof environment that Bettman wanted, nor the dummy run environment that the union wanted. How much room the dummies will have to screw themselves is the question.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

How about that franchise player exemption idea people were throwing around a while back? Could that fit somewhere in this?

No. Shhh, they almost got this thing solved, we hope. Don't throw an old wrench into it.

 

[codswallop]

I think that's about all that it does. It does not pass my smell test. It is an interesting player PA ploy. Without the link to revenues, it will probably redistribute talent more than restrains salaries.

At the end of the day, the winner of this labour dispute will be easy to spot. Is revenue defined and are the players allocated a fixed percentage of those revenues? That is a cap on salaries. As long as the NHL backs off on that demand - and apparently they have - the players can concede a team by team cap. It is just numbers picked out of the air after that.

They'll probably have to do better than $52 million, but what will really matter is how the cap is defined. It is very difficult to set something up that is not circumventable without linkage. The best way is probably to say the total salaries on a roster cannot exceed $XX million at any given time.

Tom

I'm thinking that when a deal gets done (now or at a much later date), they will both end up being a loser in this battle.

It's tough, hard-nosed negotiations. Both sides have shown their willingness to stick to their guns, each side surprised at the others resolve. The only way we will have a "winner" is if one side just crumbles, and I think that would be the worst scenario we could have at this point (one faction with the bulk of the power and the spoils won't bode well for the overall health of the league).

Aside from one party crumbling, both will have to give up part of what they really want. That's simply the way it HAS to be. Sure, one side may give up a bit less than the other. But they both will have to give in. Even if one losses a tad less than the other losses, they are both still losing.

Fans and media will jump all over it, saying this side "won" the battle and what-not. It will be analyzed to death; cap figures, arbitration, qualifying offers, UFA age, etc. Like we've done for the past several months, but this time with some substance. People will be ticked off saying this agreement won't fix the problems that need fixing, others will say this can work in the long run. All that good stuff (well, probably not too much good stuff but you know what I mean).

In the end, it boils down to both sides giving away parts of what they want in order to save the season and avoid what would be some horrible backlash from fans and sponsors over the long haul. This will be the best deal that both sides can get because if it isn't reached now, it will be far worse for both sides later on down the line. In my mind, it's already a given that both sides will be losers in this mess. Not too bad now, but far worse if this drags on.

 

[Wetcoaster]

There's too much at stake not to get something done once they've agreed on a basic format. At this point, I think we can be sure that it's going to be a cap evironment, without linkage. Fine. There can be movement in dumping a salary floor or lowering it drastically, working in some revenue sharing, and moving the cap down somewhat.

This then becomes an issue of how much rope the owners will have to hang themselves. It's clearly not going to be the dummy proof environment that Bettman wanted, nor the dummy run environment that the union wanted. How much room the dummies will have to screw themselves is the question.

The interesting thing is how the NHL offer seems to cut off the small amrket teams at the knees - supposedly Bettman's biggest boosters.

The NHL gives up linkage and sets the bar at $40 million with no revenue sharing or luxury tax and no salry rollback. How does that help Edmonton for example? They have a team payroll of 33 Million and claim that they cannot make go of it while selling out and maxing out all their revenue streams. Or these teams (2003-04 salaries):

Calgary Flames $ 36,402,575
Carolina Hurricanes $ 35,908,738
San Jose Sharks $ 34,455,000
Tampa Bay Lightning $ 34,065,379
Columbus Blue Jackets $ 34,000,000
Edmonton Oilers $ 33,375,000
Buffalo Sabres $ 32,954,250
Atlanta Thrashers $ 28,547,500
Florida Panthers $ 26,127,500
Pittsburgh Penguins $ 23,400,000
Nashville Predators $ 21,932,500

If most of these teams were losing money as claimed at those salary levels how does the NHL plan help them? I left the Wild and Blackhawks out ($27 million and $31 million respectively) because they are making money and do not have the market problems of those other teams.

The NHLPA clocks in with a 24% rollback on all contracts, a 52 million unlinked team cap maximum with significant luxury tax rates and revenue sharing. With that the small market teams have a chance to compete. Is that not what Bettman wants when he repeats a healthy 30 team league where all teams can compete for the Stanley Cup?

I am wondering if those small market teams that bought into Bettman's refrain of cost certainty and were backing him solidly, now are wondering what was the number of the truck that hit them. Without the $31 million cap and cost certainty by tying salaries to revenues, they are in serious trouble if the figures claimed by the NHL and Levitt are correct. Perhaps they never were.

We should see reactions of the teams to the proposal now the gag order has been lifted. If the small markets do not squawk then obviously the problems were not as serious as being protrayed.

 

[mudcrutch79]

We should see reactions of the teams to the proposal now the gag order has been lifted. If the small markets do not squawk then obviously the problems were not as serious as being protrayed.

The gag order was reimposed last night. Convenient, no?

 

[Wetcoaster]

The gag order was reimposed last night. Convenient, no?

I missed that. Can you imagine how that would play out before the NLRB if the NHL was ever to really try for an impasse declaration??????

 

[mudcrutch79]

I missed that. Can you imagine how that would play out before the NLRB if the NHL was ever to really try for an impasse declaration??????

So much for "rational, informed discussion" eh? I said it in early November-impasse was never an NHL goal. I have not doubt that it was considered, but they obviously discarded it.

The blood is in the water for both sides now, and this CP report is just going to ratchet up the pressure. I guarantee that Bettman is getting calls right now-for many teams, this is half the battle. Now that the cap is accepted in principle by the PA, the owners may well turn on themselves to a degree. The big market teams would probably leap at this offer. The small market teams you mentioned have to be just as interested in the revenue sharing, as in the cap, if there is any truth to the NHL numbers. If I was the PA, my next offer would drop the cap a couple of million, and come up with a big revenue sharing plan.

I wonder if Goodenow has found his pressure point to make a high cap palatable to enough owners, while keeping the players happy?

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

http://www.tsn.ca/

GOD, PLEASE LET THE OWNERS COME BACK WITH A 45 mill cap. counter offer!!

 

[codswallop]

The interesting thing is how the NHL offer seems to cut off the small amrket teams at the knees - supposedly Bettman's biggest boosters.

The NHL gives up linkage and sets the bar at $40 million with no revenue sharing or luxury tax and no salry rollback. How does that help Edmonton for example? They have a team payroll of 33 Million and claim that they cannot make go of it while selling out and maxing out all their revenue streams. Or these teams (2003-04 salaries):

Calgary Flames $ 36,402,575
Carolina Hurricanes $ 35,908,738
San Jose Sharks $ 34,455,000
Tampa Bay Lightning $ 34,065,379
Columbus Blue Jackets $ 34,000,000
Edmonton Oilers $ 33,375,000
Buffalo Sabres $ 32,954,250
Atlanta Thrashers $ 28,547,500
Florida Panthers $ 26,127,500
Pittsburgh Penguins $ 23,400,000
Nashville Predators $ 21,932,500

If most of these teams were losing money as claimed at those salary levels how does the NHL plan help them? I left the Wild and Blackhawks out ($27 million and $31 million respectively) because they are making money and do not have the market problems of those other teams.

The NHLPA clocks in with a 24% rollback on all contracts, a 52 million unlinked team cap maximum with significant luxury tax rates and revenue sharing. With that the small market teams have a chance to compete. Is that not what Bettman wants when he repeats a healthy 30 team league where all teams can compete for the Stanley Cup?

I am wondering if those small market teams that bought into Bettman's refrain of cost certainty and were backing him solidly, now are wondering what was the number of the truck that hit them. Without the $31 million cap and cost certainty by tying salaries to revenues, they are in serious trouble if the figures claimed by the NHL and Levitt are correct. Perhaps they never were.

We should see reactions of the teams to the proposal now the gag order has been lifted. If the small markets do not squawk then obviously the problems were not as serious as being protrayed.

Please read the post above your original for more perspective on the meaning of "negotiations".

It's a tad naive to listen to the reports out of the media about all this, credible or otherwise, and take it at face value (that goes for everyone who chooses to take a side in this, NHL or PA). Since that's basically all we have, most of our info on the labor battle comes from there. And I'd bet the house that each side has some pretty talented PR folks working for them.

Take a comment slighty out of context or maybe put it in an entirely different one, carefully omit certain information to make an issue seem better (or worse) than it is in reality; the list goes on and on. And on and on and on...

I'm not saying that I can read between the lines, pick out everything that is wrongly missing or inserted and come up with the truth. None of us could, we don't know enough factual information to even try. But I can at least see where those lines are, and "Danger, Will Robinson. Danger!" starts going through my head. Unfortunately for too many people around here, the same can't be said.

 

[Greschner4]

The interesting thing is how the NHL offer seems to cut off the small amrket teams at the knees - supposedly Bettman's biggest boosters.

The NHL gives up linkage and sets the bar at $40 million with no revenue sharing or luxury tax and no salry rollback. How does that help Edmonton for example? They have a team payroll of 33 Million and claim that they cannot make go of it while selling out and maxing out all their revenue streams. Or these teams (2003-04 salaries):

Calgary Flames $ 36,402,575
Carolina Hurricanes $ 35,908,738
San Jose Sharks $ 34,455,000
Tampa Bay Lightning $ 34,065,379
Columbus Blue Jackets $ 34,000,000
Edmonton Oilers $ 33,375,000
Buffalo Sabres $ 32,954,250
Atlanta Thrashers $ 28,547,500
Florida Panthers $ 26,127,500
Pittsburgh Penguins $ 23,400,000
Nashville Predators $ 21,932,500

If most of these teams were losing money as claimed at those salary levels how does the NHL plan help them? I left the Wild and Blackhawks out ($27 million and $31 million respectively) because they are making money and do not have the market problems of those other teams.

The NHLPA clocks in with a 24% rollback on all contracts, a 52 million unlinked team cap maximum with significant luxury tax rates and revenue sharing. With that the small market teams have a chance to compete. Is that not what Bettman wants when he repeats a healthy 30 team league where all teams can compete for the Stanley Cup?

I am wondering if those small market teams that bought into Bettman's refrain of cost certainty and were backing him solidly, now are wondering what was the number of the truck that hit them. Without the $31 million cap and cost certainty by tying salaries to revenues, they are in serious trouble if the figures claimed by the NHL and Levitt are correct. Perhaps they never were.

We should see reactions of the teams to the proposal now the gag order has been lifted. If the small markets do not squawk then obviously the problems were not as serious as being protrayed.

It helps them because their $30 something million is now competing against $52 million (or lower), not $75 million.

This should be obvious.

 

[mudcrutch79]

For a guy who decided to come in here tossing verbal bombs, you've got your head located squarely in your ass. He raises an excellent point, one that those of us who are Oiler fans have generally acknowledged (even the anti-PA ones)-none of the NHL offers have made much sense from an Edmonton financial perspective, if the numbers are true.

Financially, the Oilers claim to be limping along. As both sides have acknowledged, the NHLPA rollback will be quickly eaten up. There has been no substantive revenue sharing offered, as a mid-market team, according to the NHL numbers given to the PA, they aren't going to get much of whatever ends up being in place. It flat out doesn't make sense-who gives a rat's ass if your $33MM buys you better players, if you can't make any money at $33MM, and you aren't getting revenue sharing?

BTW, you're ignoring that while Edmonton was already in the salary range proposed, the teams below would have had to come up to it; doesn't it seem more logical that with more cap room, they'd have a much better shot at the elite?

That lawyer shot is pretty tired-I suppose it must be a pretty bitter experience realizing that there are smarter people out there willing to work harder than you to accomplish things. Al Strachan seems to have a hard time with it too; he's always taking shots at lawyers as well. That's nice company you keep.

 

[Wisent]

I am utterly astonished. I would have expected them to grudgingly admit to a cap, but to offer one (even though its very high)...
Counter offer would be great now

 

[GKJ]

Awesome.

So when the news broke that the PA rejected the deal that had four ridiculous triggers, prior to the triggers being released everyone felt right jumping all over them. Now that the show is on the other foot, with the NHL rejecting a cap proposal everyone wants to wait and see?

*In fairness, I don't know that anyone here posting attacked the PA for rejecting just the masses did. It's the right aproach to take, by waiting to see what th eoffer was, but in fairness, we all know it's in the 40-50 million range. A 45 million offer is a reasonable offer as long as no floor exists.

 

[GKJ]

I missed that. Can you imagine how that would play out before the NLRB if the NHL was ever to really try for an impasse declaration??????

They would get laughed out of town.

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

This is awesome news. THe players caved. Goodenow excepts some form of a cap, its only about what the amount is. THERE WILL BE A SEASON!!!!!!!!!!

I can feel it!!!