spartyinmd
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 41
- 0
Proposal was rejected by the NHLPA
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050202_115722_4956
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050202_115722_4956
John Flyers Fan said:50/50 of what ??? The NHL threw it out there, but is it 50/50 of all profits .. over $50 million ... 200 million ???
It's just like the revenue sharing plan ... no details.
Plenty of details about the salary range, and arbitration system, but amazingly no details on the revenue sharing or profit sharing ...... must have been an oversight .
sveiglar said:So they gave it to the union and an hour later throw it up on the website for the world to see? I'm very much pro-owner in this, but this reeks of PR. Don't see much for the union in it.
Why would they be fools? Cost certainty will be a part of the next CBA. This even gives them the ability to earn more than whatever the cap is by growing the game.FLYLine4LIFE said:Players whould be fools to accept this. Goodbye NHL. This was just the last bit of PR the owners wanted to get out before they cancelled the season which is obvious by them posting the proposal pretty much as soon as they PA got there hands on it.
John Flyers Fan said:If that was actually true, and to this point I have seen no reason to believe it is, why doesn't the NHL make the offer witht the hard cap, and get rid of the rest ???
If the NHL gets a hard cap, none of the other stuff should matter to them at all.
shakes said:What are you talking about? Of course they can. "You want the rollback, get rid of the cap.. No? Then the rollback is off the table"
Sounds reasonable to me.
bling said:What is even more insulting and annoying is how it is presented on the NHL.com website. All the "wonderful and generous concessions" by the NHL are posted on the main page and in order to see the "real" proposal with the nasty little zingers like Bettman et..al "accepting" the 24% salary rollback you must download another page.
I realize most everyone on these boards will gladly do that but the general public will be again duped by the Onwers into believeing the players are idiots and totally greedy and out of touch with reality blah blah blah..because they read only the slick and misleading "highlights" or even worse the side by side comparison with the even more negative and insulting offer from Dec. 14.
I'm sad, frustrated and angry that this is the best the Owners can come up with...
Wetcoaster said:First off this offer is long on concepts yet again and short on details. The players' offers have been extremely detailed with projections, charts, graphs and defintions of terms - this is a wish list:
1. There is a salary cap
AND
1A. There is a 24 % salary rollback
You get one or the other - you do not get both. This is the deal killer.
2. There is no significant revenue sharing - only play-off revenues so based on last year Tampa and Calgary would be compensating Chicago - I do not think so.
3. There is no requirement for an audit all the books nor is there an agreed defintion of hockey related revenue.
4. Arbitration rights are not mutual. The players' walk away rights are different. The players should be able to walk away as free agent and the teams have the right to match any other team's offer.
6. There is not true profit sharing (the "threshold").
5. There is a phantom payroll tax.
I cannot see the NHLPA accepting this offer.
slats432 said:Why would they be fools? Cost certainty will be a part of the next CBA. This even gives them the ability to earn more than whatever the cap is by growing the game.
There are points that the owners would move off of, but I don't see how this is a tragic offer as you make it seem.
bling said:What is even more insulting and annoying is how it is presented on the NHL.com website. All the "wonderful and generous concessions" by the NHL are posted on the main page and in order to see the "real" proposal with the nasty little zingers like Bettman et..al "accepting" the 24% salary rollback you must download another page.
I realize most everyone on these boards will gladly do that but the general public will be again duped by the Onwers into believeing the players are idiots and totally greedy and out of touch with reality blah blah blah..because they read only the slick and misleading "highlights" or even worse the side by side comparison with the even more negative and insulting offer from Dec. 14.
I'm sad, frustrated and angry that this is the best the Owners can come up with...
GregStack said:You're correct.
There is most definitely room to move, and that is likely why stations are confused as to what's going on right now. Some say it's over, some say talks are on, some say the proposal is rejected...Likely because the proposal was rejected, and the PA is now saying "Listen, let's tweak this, oh--and screw you about the cap/rollback, choose one or the other.".
THere's no way this late in the game that Saskin would turn it down without some sort of an attempt at moving things around. However, if the NHL is unwilling to move on their offer (I'm not saying drop the cap, or lose what they want from the deal) then all is lost. That deal, as it is now, will not be the one to get anything done.
John Flyers Fan said:So what we have here is
#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus
but hey the players get
#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue
Slewfoot said:Don't forget the league has offered to lower the age for UFA by a whopping 1 year from 31 to 30 !!
My point is why bother changing the age by 1 year ? If the intention is to 'give' something to the PA , then make it more meaningful like 28....Patrick - Flames Fan said:Hey its a start. Why make it 28 when most players come into their prime at that age. So a team basically developes a player and then loses their rights once they hit their prime. 30 years is a very fair age.
Wetcoaster said:First off this offer is long on concepts yet again and short on details. The players' offers have been extremely detailed with projections, charts, graphs and defintions of terms - this is a wish list:
1. There is a salary cap
AND
1A. There is a 24 % salary rollback
You get one or the other - you do not get both. This is the deal killer.
2. There is no significant revenue sharing - only play-off revenues so based on last year Tampa and Calgary would be compensating Chicago - I do not think so.
3. There is no requirement for an audit all the books nor is there an agreed defintion of hockey related revenue.
4. Arbitration rights are not mutual. The players' walk away rights are different. The players should be able to walk away as free agent and the teams have the right to match any other team's offer.
6. There is not true profit sharing (the "threshold").
5. There is a phantom payroll tax.
I cannot see the NHLPA accepting this offer.
John Flyers Fan said:So what we have here is
#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus
but hey the players get
#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue
Slewfoot said:My point is why bother changing the age by 1 year ? If the intention is to 'give' something to the PA , then make it more meaningful like 28....
Slewfoot said:My point is why bother changing the age by 1 year ? If the intention is to 'give' something to the PA , then make it more meaningful like 28....
And that is better for which side ??Flames Draft Watcher said:The owners in their offer can remove arbitration by dropping the UFA age to 28.
John, John, John, John, John, John,John Flyers Fan said:So what we have here is
#1. Hard Cap
#2. 24% rollback
#3. No revenue sharing details
#4. No profit sharing details
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts
#6. Maximum salary per player .. to be negotiated
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)
#8. 4 year entry level deals.
#9. No hold-out option
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus
but hey the players get
#1. $300K minimum (which currently helps nobody)
#2. Joint owner-player council
#3. Share of 2005 Playoff revenue