Huge News!!! Nhlpa Offers Cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

trahans99

Registered User
Apr 7, 2004
1,443
0
Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
Bruwinz37 said:
I have been saying for weeks it would be a cap without linkage between 42-45m. For those of you who dont think this will help small market teams I think you have to consider the big picture. This will help them remain competitive in free agency and would allow them to keep their home grown talent. Having teams not being to outspend them by 10s of millions of dollars would maintain a competitive environment for all.

As far as all the other issues I would think that many of them have already been decided on. Arbitration and entry level deals have been a part of negotiations all along and have probably been agreed upon.



I agree, and now that the owners have a cap (if deal gets done), it will be easier to get a lower cap if the revenues warrant it. IMO if the owners get a cap and they most likely will then they win as it will help them tremendously in the next CBA in 6 or 8 years.

And this is for CRYIN BRYAN McCABE, TREVOR LINDEN, CHRIS PRONGER and all those goofs that said "We'll never accept a cap" :D :D :lol
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
likea said:
Roenicks group put pressure on Goodenow that wan't there then.....

Roenicks group was talking 42 million...Goodenow says well if we are going to be forced to get a cap lets start high and gte as much as we can...and they did

I think the actual hard deadline was the key. If the hard deadline was January 15th, I think we would have seen the same movement we're seing now, back then.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
mudcrutch79 said:
This isn't the point of what we're discussing here, but there are public sources who refute your postion that this is quite enough. Forbes methodology involves guessing from the outside, without any access to the books-even the NHL says that they're wrong. There is not enough info out there.

How much credibility you give to sources who only refute Levitt's audit without giving any examples of why they were wrong? How much credibility do you give to people who have not even SEEN the actual NHL numbers unlike Levitt??

Like I said, all the credible info we have so far backs up NHL's claims.

mudcrutch79 said:
I guess that's for others to judge. I've tried to square the NHL's actions with their claims, and I can't. My conclusion is that the numbers are wrong, or that there are other beneficial to which we're not privy. Not every team is going to make the playoffs, and no rational owner would proceed with a business plan that requires a playoff run to turn a profit..

Your conclusion is only based on speculation, guessing and downright wishful thinking which supports your bias & views. In other words, not a solid base by any means.

mudcrutch79 said:
What conflicting claims? The PA basically says that they don't know/care what the NHL's financial position is. They noted that Forbes contradicts the NHL's position, which was stupid of them to do, but there it is. The NHL is the one who have claimed massive losses, the PA says they don't know and don't care. You might not like the PA's position, but there's more evidence to back it up.

Forbes also says that NHL is making huge losses so it doesn't support PA's views in anyway. The only question here is how much they are actually losing, not if they are losing or not.

mudcrutch79 said:
That can't be right, but it really doesn't matter. You're saying that a plan requiring an appearance in Rd. 2 is acceptable now? So to hell with the 22 teams that don't make it that far?

No, that's what I'm saying at all! You're missing the point all the time. During the last CBA it wasn't enough to turn profit even if you got to round 1 of play-offs, with a new CBA and lower salaries it might be profitable even if you miss the play-offs.

mudcrutch79 said:
Sure, except what the NHL has proposed is a salary range, where the Oilers would, according to their numbers, be making no money, barring a playoff run. You don't seem to understand how the NHL's proposal would work.

There was no mention of minimum salary in the latest offers but even if it had one, Oilers increased competitiviness would ensure extra revenues.

It's you who don't seem to understand the effects of NHL's proposal.

mudcrutch79 said:
Do these people market themselves as laborlawyers? I figure your average Masters degree knows that it's "labour lawyers". Provide a link, or let it go.

Oooh, spelling smack! A sure sign that I have you cornered. Grow up.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
Bruwinz37 said:
I have been saying for weeks it would be a cap without linkage between 42-45m. For those of you who dont think this will help small market teams I think you have to consider the big picture. This will help them remain competitive in free agency and would allow them to keep their home grown talent. Having teams not being to outspend them by 10s of millions of dollars would maintain a competitive environment for all.

As far as all the other issues I would think that many of them have already been decided on. Arbitration and entry level deals have been a part of negotiations all along and have probably been agreed upon.

I couldn't agree with you more. If the NHL/NHLPA fail to make a deal now I am gonna to drive over to the local rink and Zamboni myself.
 

Roots73

TMLTP- ITS IN THE GAME!
May 10, 2004
340
49
You got that right. If the PA and the league can't pick a number, then they all should be shot and pissed on!! :mad:
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Pepper said:
How much credibility you give to sources who only refute Levitt's audit without giving any examples of why they were wrong? How much credibility do you give to people who have not even SEEN the actual NHL numbers unlike Levitt??

I'm done with you. I think you're lying about having a masters (or so biased that you are ignoring something you learned), because I can't believe someone with a masters in a commerce related field doesn't understand the difference between an audit and a report. It's literally impossible. Levitt never performed an audit. Without an audit, as the professor says, it's basically a review and saying things look right. The point isn't that the numbers are right or wrong-it's that he basically checked the math, and not the veracity of the numbers. Forbes is Forbes-their numbers contradict the information that the NHL provided the PA.

Oooh, spelling smack! A sure sign that I have you cornered. Grow up.

Nope, just pointing out that educated people tend to spell things properly. They value having others understand their point. I'd expect most people who aren't lying about having a masters to understand that. Of course, I'd expect most people with advanced education to know that labourlawyer is multiple words.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
mudcrutch79 said:
I'm done with you. I think you're lying about having a masters (or so biased that you are ignoring something you learned), because I can't believe someone with a masters in a commerce related field doesn't understand the difference between an audit and a report.

I think you're just too stubborn to believe something that conflicts your own views. You have nothing to prove it wrong so you choose to discredit it.

Very commonly used arguing tactic, it's easy but also so obvious.

mudcrutch79 said:
Forbes is Forbes-their numbers contradict the information that the NHL provided the PA.

Tell me, how does Forbes have enough information to be able to CREDIBLY contradict any financial information NHL gives to PA?? Especially given the fact that Forbes has CONSTANTLY gotten the values of the franchises wrong during the last 5 or so years.

Yeah, things that make you go hmmmm. But hey, again feel free to believe a source which doesn't have even nearly enough information to make any conclusions.

mudcrutch79 said:
Nope, just pointing out that educated people tend to spell things properly.

Well when you manage to get past the undergraduate phase of your education you will notice that hockey messageboards and real business are 2 completely different things.

mudcrutch79 said:
They value having others understand their point.

Yes, educated people understand the point despite typos & misspelling. I guess that makes you part of the not-so-educated people.

mudcrutch79 said:
I'd expect most people who aren't lying about having a masters to understand that. Of course, I'd expect most people with advanced education to know that labourlawyer is multiple words.

Also educated people (advanced and less advanced) most often realize that when writing a post to a hockeyforum while having several other tasks at work can lead to occasional misspelling & typos.

Too bad you're sadly lacking in that department.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
TonySCV said:
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

There is no compromise here.
The players have caved.

If I was the players, I wouldn't budge an inch from the $52M hard cap.
The soft cap penalties are negotiable.
You want dollar for dollar at $36 Mill? Fine. As long as we have some assurances that the small market teams will use it on salaries.
If not, the penalties are sent to the union.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
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's going to help all of those teams.
With a salary cap between $40 and $50 Million, the top spending teams are going to be unable to go out and buy the Oilers growing stars. There will be less demand for UFAs and the salary pressures will drop considerably.

Also, as Chris Chelios and others have alluded to, I expect the NHL to blitz the media with a marketing campaign.
Chelios recently said that many players, coaches and GMs believe that the NHL has purposely let the league fall into disrepair so the league could paint a terrible picture coming into these negotiations?
No tv deal? Fine. Only makes us look better when the players refuse a salary cap.
Bill Wirtz is a classic example.

Anyway, the NHL didn't have many American fans to offend with this lockout.
So in some ways, it's "no harm no foul"
They get their cap. They curb salaries. Now they can finally focus on improving and marketing their game.
And with costs undercontrol and revenues nowhere to go but up, well, you get the picture.

Unfortunately, the cities that lose are the cities that have always supported their teams.
This lockout has done a lot of damage in Canada.
And in areas like Detroit, many people are fed up with the whole thing.

Bettman did a great job demonizing the players during the CBA. He won the battle of public opinion by making the players look greedy and the owners look like honorable men.
But look at these boards and talk to people. Some of these fans really dislike the players now.
Hockey has work to do.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
22,906
6,497
Newsguyone said:
Bettman did a great job demonizing the players during the CBA. He won the battle of public opinion by making the players look greedy and the owners look like honorable men.
But look at these boards and talk to people. Some of these fans really dislike the players now.
Hockey has work to do.

Maybe they can just fire Goodenow and spin off the whole thing as his fault. The poor 'mislead' players strayed from the 'moral and kind' owners due to Goodenow's devilish presence, but now the NHL has quashed the evil influence and brought the players back to the light. ;) Fans feel for the 'mislead' players, love the 'honorable' owners and all the demonization gets put on Goodenow, who is no longer affiliated with hockey. :eek:
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
Bettman did a great job demonizing the players during the CBA. He won the battle of public opinion by making the players look greedy and the owners look like honorable men.
But look at these boards and talk to people. Some of these fans really dislike the players now.
Hockey has work to do.

The reason above is why Bob McKenzie spoke about Bettman possibly losing his job even if the owners "win" this CBA. So much bad blood towards Bettman, that it could be very difficult for him to lead the NHL after the lockout.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
John Flyers Fan said:
The reason above is why Bob McKenzie spoke about Bettman possibly losing his job even if the owners "win" this CBA. So much bad blood towards Bettman, that it could be very difficult for him to lead the NHL after the lockout.

I think it's gotta be pretty likely. At some point, Bettman becomes an impediment for the league in terms of their relationship with the players. Bettman is the more expendable one.

Daly has come off pretty well during this whole fiasco; I don't know what the players think of him, but considering the contempt for Bettman, Daly might look attractive. Daly also seems to have a decent relationship with the PA; at least insofar as they speak with him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bettman took the CBA as his victory and moved on. Seems unfair, but hey...ask Winston Churchill about it.
 

Iceman23

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
65
0
Daly seems to be the good cop to Bettman's bad cop. I think the big bald guy could be the commish someday.
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
Like many have said...if they can't reach a deal with this offer, there is really a problem.

Personally I expect the owners to move farther on the level of the cap than the players. Something like 47 million in the end.

I'm interested to see if there are any loophole swhen it's all said and done, such as bonuses not being tied in anywhere...that type of thing...

Get it done.
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
chiavsfan said:
You mean....GIT R' DONE!!!

That works for me too...No...wait...let's negotiate this...

Get R' Done? Is that good for both sides here?

(if only Gary and Bob had of tried this approach of "negotiating" earlier)
 

Iceman23

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
65
0
Rather than Get-R-Done, I'd prefer "take it to the hoop". At least if they can get a step ladder for Bettman :D
 

shnagle

Registered User
Apr 27, 2003
131
70
NYC
Visit site
GregStack said:
That works for me too...No...wait...let's negotiate this...

Get R' Done? Is that good for both sides here?

(if only Gary and Bob had of tried this approach of "negotiating" earlier)
It's funny how when each side comes off its stance you suddenly have a negotiation. Everything before today was pure BS and posturing. Makes you wonder what the hell they were waiting for????
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
shnagle said:
It's funny how when each side comes off its stance you suddenly have a negotiation. Everything before today was pure BS and posturing. Makes you wonder what the hell they were waiting for???

Unfortunately a hard-deadline, that came at least a month too late.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
Owners coming off linkage, players coming off their no cap stance. Concessions by both sides being made. Why couldnt this have been done in December or last month? It's all about numbers now. Cap around the mid 40s should get a deal done. I'm more optimistic than I was last night, but I'm still not going to get my hopes up. If anyone can screw this up now, its these two sides.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
shnagle said:
It's funny how when each side comes off its stance you suddenly have a negotiation. Everything before today was pure BS and posturing. Makes you wonder what the hell they were waiting for????

Possibly a square kick from some federal mediators??? Being dumped all over for negotiating in the media might just might be the cause??? Jeez wonder why they reinstituted the gag order???
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Greschner4 said:
It helps them because their $30 something million is now competing against $52 million (or lower), not $75 million.

This should be obvious.

Yep. A cap, even as high as $52 million, will act as a drag on salary, meaning Edmonton will get more bang for it's 30 million bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->