me2 said:
Yet that article offered no such information. Have you been reduced to cut and pasting random articles in the hope sheer volume will overwhelm anyone arguing against your points?
Argue against the fact the NHL December plan had a floor.
Argue against the fact the NHL December plan had a floating ceiling that could rise with revenue.
If Goodenow couldn't have cut a better deal than the current rumoured one by working off the NHLs December offer at the time shouldn't be allowed to handle his own bus money.
The December NHL offer, although it had a higher floor, was not necessarily better than the "current" deal on the table, from the players' perspective. Hilights:
* 51-57% min and max salary range, which worked out to $32.4 million floor and $36.4 million ceiling, based on league's forecast of $2.032 billion in revenues and $2.2 million per team costs of non-salary benefits. Too tiny of a range to operate within, if you ask me. Allows for no fluctuation to add salary if you are close to a cup, or slash salary if you're hopelessly out of the playoff picture.
* Unbalanced rollback that would cut the top salaries by 35%, which the players hated.
* Escrow accounts, in case revenues come in lower than expected, players could give back another 5% or so of their contracts, even after rolling them back 35%.
* UFA at age 30
* NO SALARY ARBITRATION
* QO's at an "unspecified" rate below 100% (based on later proposals, the league was shooting for 75% QO's)
* Unspecified revenue sharing that was based predominantly on playoff revenue, which would take money from Calgary and Tampa to give to the NY Rangers.
If you, in good conscience, are convinced that this offer has to be better than the "current" possible deal then you refuse to actually look at the two with your eyes open.
The main things to consider are what the min and max will be as revenues get back to normal, and how long they will take to get there. I assume the current deal is using a much smaller number than $2.1 billion for revenues, so the "current" cap of roughly $37 million will be much higher than the Dec proposal of $36.4 million based on $2.1 billion in revenues. Not to mention the concessions the players will be getting in so many other areas, such as UFA age (28), QO's (at least 100%) and arbitration (will not be eliminated).
Goodenow, back in Dec, could not have cut a better deal either if he chose to negotiate off the owners plan. The owners back then weren't exactly in a giving mood, but were in full "stick it to the players" mode, and had basically said that the systemic issues (arbitration, QO's, etc) were the important pieces. Aside from raising the cap (and eliminating the floor altogether) subsequent NHL offers did nothing to improve on this one until the season was cancelled.
Best post in this thread. The people you won't name are probably unemployed cause the same 5 or 6 posters have been arguing the same points and insulting each other since this thing started.
