New Proposal Coming from PA on Sunday

[likea]

I have to admit, I am very interested in seeing what the NHLPA proposal will look like since it has to control costs to a certain extent....I bet it is alot different than the one we saw in Dec.

 

[RangerBoy]

The rumor is everywhere but Bill Guerin denied the NHLPA was making a new proposal in the New York Daily News today

The OC Register had some Teemu Selanne quotes

A group of roughly 10 high-profile players, up against Commissioner Gary Bettman's weekend deadline for significant collective-bargaining progress necessary to end the NHL lockout and salvage a portion of this season, spent Saturday making telephone calls in an effort to gauge sentiment among union membership.

"I know they have been calling to see what we can do," former Mighty Ducks right wing Teemu Selanne said.

"I think they're just trying to get more opinions, to see if everybody is feeling the same way. I know there are players right now who are really worried about the situation."

Depending on what the flurry of calls reveals, NHL Players' Association executive director Bob Goodenow could receive increased pressure from his constituents to make another proposal to Bettman.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/02/13/sections/sports/pro/article_408175.php

 

[RangerBoy]

The Bergen Record reported the NHL lifted the gag order on their teams on Wednesday after the NHLPA rejected their proposal

it appears the players will base their new proposal on negotiating the four controversial trigger points from the league's Wednesday "compromise offer."

But it is difficult to believe Bettman wouldn't find some wiggle room with that deadline if there was something close to acceptable from the players on the table today

Goodenow and Saskin also stated strongly that they had no interest in what they termed "a flip-flop" compromise, but pressure from the players to try something to save the season might have convinced them otherwise. Conversely, there also have been rumors of pressure from owners on Bettman to try to reach a settlement.

In exchange for their latest concession, the players will insist on a significant and precisely worded revenue-sharing plan. To date, the league has provided only vague ideas on a revenue-sharing plan.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY2NTMyODAmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Why is the NHLPA so concerned about revenue sharing?If the NHL guarantees the money will be there for the low revenue teams,then why does the PA spend so much time talking about revenue sharing?In the last meeting on Thursday,the PA only wanted to discuss revenue sharing.As long as the players receive their share,let the NHL worry about the revenue sharing plan

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Why is the NHLPA so concerned about revenue sharing?If the NHL guarantees the money will be there for the low revenue teams,then why does the PA spend so much time talking about revenue sharing?In the last meeting on Thursday,the PA only wanted to discuss revenue sharing.As long as the players receive their share,let the NHL worry about the revenue sharing plan

Exactly. This is none of the players' business. The owners have already written into their proposals that revenue sharing will take place, so don't worry about it. The most important thing with revenue sharing is defining what the costs are so those that draw up the plans have a better idea of what type of mechanisms to put into place. Without that its impossible to define what type of revenue sharing to that will work. Until the PA agrees to a deal that defines the expenses, revenue sharing is extremely difficult to outline.

 

[HughJass*]

this just in, the sun will rise tomorrow!

Shyser!

/me goes back to the coffin.

 

[RangerBoy]

Exactly. This is none of the players' business. The owners have already written into their proposals that revenue sharing will take place, so don't worry about it. The most important thing with revenue sharing is defining what the costs are so those that draw up the plans have a better idea of what type of mechanisms to put into place. Without that its impossible to define what type of revenue sharing to that will work. Until the PA agrees to a deal that defines the expenses, revenue sharing is extremely difficult to outline.

If the NHLPA were smart,they would tell the NHL the PA would accept a hard cap not linked to revenue.If they miss this season and part of next season,the NHLPA is not going to get a better deal.That salary range proposal by the NHL will be $30-32 million.Is that what the NHLPA wants?It's time for a palace coup of Bob Goodenow, Ted Saskin and the NHLPA exec committee such Daniel Alfredsson,Arturs Irbe and especially Billy Guerin

Some players still don't get it

Said Rangers defenseman Tom Poti: "I think we're at the point now where we're waiting to see who is going to blink first. As of today, we aren't ready to blink. And I guess we're hoping that the owners will eventually."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/280407p-240320c.html

Not only is Tommy allergic to chocolate and peanuts but he is only brain dead.Does he really need more convincing the owners will not blink?Did Tom attend classes in his two years at BU?

 

[Bruwinz37]

If the NHLPA were smart,they would tell the NHL the PA would accept a hard cap not linked to revenue.If they miss this season and part of next season,the NHLPA is not going to get a better deal.That salary range proposal by the NHL will be $30-32 million.Is that what the NHLPA wants?It's time for a palace coup of Bob Goodenow, Ted Saskin and the NHLPA exec committee such Daniel Alfredsson,Arturs Irbe and especially Billy Guerin

Some players still don't get it

Said Rangers defenseman Tom Poti: "I think we're at the point now where we're waiting to see who is going to blink first. As of today, we aren't ready to blink. And I guess we're hoping that the owners will eventually."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/280407p-240320c.html

Not only is Tommy allergic to chocolate and peanuts but he is only brain dead.Does he really need more convincing the owners will not blink?Did Tom attend classes in his two years at BU?

I am not sure I would call Poti brain dead, he is just not showing the PA's hand. I am pro owners, but I think it is more stupid to do what Jeremy Roenick did than it is to do what Poti said. Its posturing, nothing more. I wont believe any of this until it is on paper signed and sealed.

Another side note......anyone else think it is very funny that Arturs Irbe is a union rep? Did he even play in the league the last two years? What is he fighting for...he wont even have a job when play resumes.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

I am not sure I would call Poti brain dead, he is just not showing the PA's hand. I am pro owners, but I think it is more stupid to do what Jeremy Roenick did than it is to do what Poti said. Its posturing, nothing more. I wont believe any of this until it is on paper signed and sealed.

Another side note......anyone else think it is very funny that Arturs Irbe is a union rep? Did he even play in the league the last two years? What is he fighting for...he wont even have a job when play resumes.

Come one now, Dont be hattin on Irbe...Just because he played in a Salary Caped league the last 2 years doesnt mean he cant fight for the PA cause.

The funny thing is that, hes not just a rep hes on the Executive Committee.

 

[futurcorerock]

I expect Bettman to completely miscalculate how much the fans are behind the owners and reject a deal such as this and say that it's not enough "cost certainty". It would be the final stupid act in a comedy of errors.

I'm a pro-owner guy by the way...

Ofcourse Bettman will reject an offer, This new deal that will save the season will undoubtedly be tweaked by both Bettman and Goodenow, Bettman isnt stupid enough to play 1995 all over again.

 

[Icey]

The Bergen Record reported the NHL lifted the gag order on their teams on Wednesday after the NHLPA rejected their proposal

it appears the players will base their new proposal on negotiating the four controversial trigger points from the league's Wednesday "compromise offer."

But it is difficult to believe Bettman wouldn't find some wiggle room with that deadline if there was something close to acceptable from the players on the table today

Goodenow and Saskin also stated strongly that they had no interest in what they termed "a flip-flop" compromise, but pressure from the players to try something to save the season might have convinced them otherwise. Conversely, there also have been rumors of pressure from owners on Bettman to try to reach a settlement.

In exchange for their latest concession, the players will insist on a significant and precisely worded revenue-sharing plan. To date, the league has provided only vague ideas on a revenue-sharing plan.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...lRUV5eTY2NTMyODAmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Why is the NHLPA so concerned about revenue sharing?If the NHL guarantees the money will be there for the low revenue teams,then why does the PA spend so much time talking about revenue sharing?In the last meeting on Thursday,the PA only wanted to discuss revenue sharing.As long as the players receive their share,let the NHL worry about the revenue sharing plan

Do you really not get the revenue sharing or is this just a game your playing? The NHLPA proposal has them sharing revenue from the 10 highest revenue teams to the 10 lowest revnue sharing teams from regular season revenue. The NHL has them sharing revenue mainly from Stanly Cup playoff revenue. So just take last season and teams such as Nashville, Calgary, San Jose, Tampa Bay would end up paying into the revenue sharing program instead of receiving it and a team like NY Rangers would pay next to nothing because they didn't make the playoffs. A team like Dallas that only played 2 home playoff games would pay minimal into it and teams such as Detroit, Colorado, PHiladelphia and Toronto would pay more into but not as much as Calgary and Tampa Bay and not as much as they would under the NHLPA proposal. The NHL's plan hurts the teams that revenue sharing is supposed to be helping.

If the small market teams don't receive the revenue sharing then how does it even the playing field, because a salary cap alone will not do that. Revenue sharing is huge and the NHL is brushing it off. The NFL is so successful not because of their salary cap, but because of their revenue sharing.

But considering how important revenue sharing is to the NHLPA you would think the NHL would just address it. They won't because they don't want to piss off the big market teams. Teams like Dallas, Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia, Colorado, Rangers don't want to lose their revenue. Its the bone the NHL is throwing them and in the end if they don't do the revenue sharing properly, salary cap or no salary cap this league will not survive.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Why is the NHLPA so concerned about revenue sharing?If the NHL guarantees the money will be there for the low revenue teams,then why does the PA spend so much time talking about revenue sharing?In the last meeting on Thursday,the PA only wanted to discuss revenue sharing.As long as the players receive their share,let the NHL worry about the revenue sharing plan

Because the revenue sharing plan is one of the most important aspects of a CBA, especially if you are going to have a capped system. This is one issue the NHL has sidestepped all along, for reasons stated above by icey. The PA brings it up for the same reason that the NHL proposed to cut salaries by different percentages depending on the players current salary. The NHL was trying to alienate the top paid players and hope that the guys making < 800k would step up and start putting pressure on Goodenow. The same thing can happen when the PA proposes a revenue sharing plan. It's the only thing that could split the owners at this point. It will alienate the big markets and some of them, who don't really need this lockout as much as others, might step up and say let's just get a deal done.

On top of that, it's obvious that there are as many as 6-10 teams who would still lose money under the NHL's plan. There are teams spending less than 30 million right now who are losing money, if they have to spend 32 or 34 million they will lose even more...not to mention this lockout is going to hurt them the most. If the NHL's hard cap plan was implemented without a decent revenue sharing system, there is a possibility that a couple teams just aren't going to make it(which is why the NHL's proposals are unreasonable. They help the teams who don't need it the most, and leave the ones who do need help in a continuing struggle to break even). Barring a miracle or a move to a better hockey market, there are teams that would have to fold or be contracted without revenue sharing. This would mean less jobs for the PA, so it's something that they should be worried about.

 

[Scoogs]

Funny little catch on Eklunds blog.... He had a headline called "Canadian in New York", referring to the spotting of Goodenow in New York. Funny thing is Goodenow is American, and someone caught it and posted. Eklund plays along saying "Good catch, it's for me to know"...

Whatever that means... Horrible, and hilarious. :lol

 

[perrykaravello]

Linden

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050213_133047_4820

 

[Scoogs]

Linden

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050213_133047_4820

Yea I've read that. It says that we shouldn't be surprised to see him rejoin. It doesnt say he was spotted or he is joining. And in Eklunds article he refers to Goodenow as being that Canadan, as follows...

A Canadian in New York?

There are rumors in my inbox this morning that Goodenow may have been in New York as early as Saturday evening. However, confirmation is hard to come by, as the PA is locked down...especially from me.

 

[perrykaravello]

I really don't care who's sources are right , I just want the NHL back by the end of this week!

 

[deathbear]

i honestly can't imagine at this point what it would be like to have the nhl back again. it's all so far removed.

it'd be great though, if they did.

 

[Mess]

Because the revenue sharing plan is one of the most important aspects of a CBA, especially if you are going to have a capped system. This is one issue the NHL has sidestepped all along, for reasons stated above by icey. The PA brings it up for the same reason that the NHL proposed to cut salaries by different percentages depending on the players current salary. The NHL was trying to alienate the top paid players and hope that the guys making < 800k would step up and start putting pressure on Goodenow. The same thing can happen when the PA proposes a revenue sharing plan. It's the only thing that could split the owners at this point. It will alienate the big markets and some of them, who don't really need this lockout as much as others, might step up and say let's just get a deal done.

On top of that, it's obvious that there are as many as 6-10 teams who would still lose money under the NHL's plan. There are teams spending less than 30 million right now who are losing money, if they have to spend 32 or 34 million they will lose even more...not to mention this lockout is going to hurt them the most. If the NHL's hard cap plan was implemented without a decent revenue sharing system, there is a possibility that a couple teams just aren't going to make it(which is why the NHL's proposals are unreasonable. They help the teams who don't need it the most, and leave the ones who do need help in a continuing struggle to break even). Barring a miracle or a move to a better hockey market, there are teams that would have to fold or be contracted without revenue sharing. This would mean less jobs for the PA, so it's something that they should be worried about.

I thought you were going to Break into a Kenny Rodgers song and call Bettman the Gambler..

You gotta know when to Hold 'um
Know when to Fold 'um
Know when to Walk away
Know when to Run ..

You never count you Contracting while sitting at the negotiating table

There will be time enough for Contracting when the CBA is done....


Conclusion :

Bettman needs their vote now .. Once the new CBA is in place constructed around their very existence, their survival will no longer be a concern and focus will turn to how to make Jacobs and Wirtz rich...

Since the league is not prepared to refund any expansion money, they will likely provide a little kick back to them once the Hard Cap & Linkage is place and the Owners coffers are overflowing .. This Bettman is no fool ..He needs no Revenue Sharing Plan.

He knows these Non-Hockey Markets are already clinically dead, kept only alive by Life supports systems of this lockout.. He is just strategically deciding when its in the best interest of the remaining Owner Family when to pull the plug.. IMO

 

[Twine Seeking Missle]

i honestly can't imagine at this point what it would be like to have the nhl back again. it's all so far removed.

it'd be great though, if they did.

I could'nt have said it better myself. I have actually forgotten what its like to feel the excitement of a live NHL game and thats really really sad.

 

[WHARF1940]

I expect Bettman to completely miscalculate how much the fans are behind the owners and reject a deal such as this and say that it's not enough "cost certainty". It would be the final stupid act in a comedy of errors.

I'm a pro-owner guy by the way...

why at this point anyone is pro anything is beyond me, they both suck.

 

[SJeasy]

From what has gone on up to now, it appears that Bettman is well aware of Goodenow being a deadline hunter and has made that part of the NHL tactic by not setting a deadline. The uncertainty makes life miserable for the fans. Having been through this before, IMO, he appears to be making sure that he is not burned with a bad agreement again by rushing to sign without thinking about the long term implications. It looks as if Goodenow doesn't care about the fan/sponsor backlash and the restraint that may put on the market in using his tactic.

In reality, the best agreement for both sides would be set by being creative in writing up an agreement that is satisfactory for both sides for the sake of the business as a whole. IMHO, both parties do not impress me as being top notch negotiators exactly because they pursuing this in an adversarial manner. I am coming to the conclusion that PA will come with a proposal, but the NHL will want to tweak it so much that no agreement will be made, especially because Bettman has still not set a specific deadline.

 

[SENSible1*]

Because the revenue sharing plan is one of the most important aspects of a CBA, especially if you are going to have a capped system. This is one issue the NHL has sidestepped all along, for reasons stated above by icey. The PA brings it up for the same reason that the NHL proposed to cut salaries by different percentages depending on the players current salary. The NHL was trying to alienate the top paid players and hope that the guys making < 800k would step up and start putting pressure on Goodenow. The same thing can happen when the PA proposes a revenue sharing plan. It's the only thing that could split the owners at this point. It will alienate the big markets and some of them, who don't really need this lockout as much as others, might step up and say let's just get a deal done.

On top of that, it's obvious that there are as many as 6-10 teams who would still lose money under the NHL's plan. There are teams spending less than 30 million right now who are losing money, if they have to spend 32 or 34 million they will lose even more...not to mention this lockout is going to hurt them the most. If the NHL's hard cap plan was implemented without a decent revenue sharing system, there is a possibility that a couple teams just aren't going to make it(which is why the NHL's proposals are unreasonable. They help the teams who don't need it the most, and leave the ones who do need help in a continuing struggle to break even). Barring a miracle or a move to a better hockey market, there are teams that would have to fold or be contracted without revenue sharing. This would mean less jobs for the PA, so it's something that they should be worried about.

The NHL has made a legally binding committment to share adequate revenue for all teams to meet the minimum cap.

If the PA is worried about this fact, negotiate penalties into the CBA for failure to meet the cap minimum and HUGE penalties for any franchise that folds. Then shut up about revenue sharing and get on with the business at hand.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The NHL has made a legally binding committment to share adequate revenue for all teams to meet the minimum cap.

If the PA is worried about this fact, negotiate penalties into the CBA for failure to meet the cap minimum and HUGE penalties for any franchise that folds. Then shut up about revenue sharing and get on with the business at hand.

Wouldn't it be much easier to put in a revenue sharing system that works than to just put penalties in the CBA incase whatever the NHL comes up with at a later date doesn't work? I mean you can't write up a CBA and say revenue sharing, we will decide on that later. It's an essential part of this and any CBA with a cap, so it needs to be done now.

 

[SENSible1*]

Wouldn't it be much easier to put in a revenue sharing system that works than to just put penalties in the CBA incase whatever the NHL comes up with at a later date doesn't work? I mean you can't write up a CBA and say revenue sharing, we will decide on that later. It's an essential part of this and any CBA with a cap, so it needs to be done now.

Revenue sharing is NOT an essential part of a CBA. It is 100% an internal league matter and none of the PA's business.

The PA wants to drive a wedge between the owners and the league is well within their rights to tell them to get bent.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Revenue sharing is NOT an essential part of a CBA. It is 100% an internal league matter and none of the PA's business.

The PA wants to drive a wedge between the owners and the league is well within their rights to tell them to get bent.

It IS an essential part of a CBA in which there is a hard cap, which this CBA will most likely have. As I already said, a failed revenue sharing process along with a salary floor means that some teams are going to be in big trouble in a few years, which could mean less teams and less jobs for the PA down the road. It is the PA's business

 

[SENSible1*]

It IS an essential part of a CBA in which there is a hard cap, which this CBA will most likely have. As I already said, a failed revenue sharing process along with a salary floor means that some teams are going to be in big trouble in a few years, which could mean less teams and less jobs for the PA down the road. It is the PA's business

No, it is not an essential ingredient.

If the owners of the small market teams are willing to sign an agreement that will see them post losses for the short-term to achieve their long-term goals, then that is 100% their business and none of the PA's concern.

The NHL has guaranteed the PA that they will look after this internal matter. If they are suspicious of the value of the guarantee, then negotiate penalty clauses covering failure to meet cap minimums/franchise failures and get on with the business of striking a deal.