NHL.com has new proposal posted

Status
Not open for further replies.

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
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.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
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. :dunno:


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.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
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 :shakehead .

If the players were really interested they'd counter and the details would be worked out. The players should say we want the threshold for profit sharing to be $40 million and see what happens.
 

bling

Registered User
Jun 23, 2004
2,934
0
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.

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...
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
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.
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.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
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.

It DOESN'T matter to them, and they've said so since day one.

Once the players agree to a cap on base salaries, they could probably get a lot of what they'd ask for. The owners have already thrown in uncapped profit sharing and the players could get a lot more than that. If they'd only ask.

So far though, they players haven't asked, so the owners aren't going to negotiate against themselves anymore.

And why would they?
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
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.

Sounds reasonable to me, and I'm sure most people.

The terms of a rollback were offered with no cap, if the league wants th erole back, then no cap, if the league wants the cap, then no roll back it's quite simple. It's ridiculous that anyone would think both the 24% and the cap could be put in. (at those levels)
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
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...

Why is it insulting that the CBA proposal is posted on nhlcbanews.com, as the 12/14 proposal was? The PA has their 12/9 proposal online. No one made a big deal about it in December.

By the way, as far as I can see, nhl.com never used the words "wonderful and generous concessions." And in case you didn't know, contract proposals usually stipulate what gets agreed upon.... I'm sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out what your problem is.
 

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
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. :dunno:


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.

The cap pretty much is the deal killer.

if I were the NHL I'd want a hard cap too. But I would realize that I would have to give up MAJOR concessions elsewhere to compensate. Honestly, If I were the NHL and I could get say a hard cap ($45-50 million), I could care less about anything else like UFA status, arbitration whatever.
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
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.

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.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
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...

The players aren't stupid or idiots, or greedy ... but they are way out of touch with reality and very stubborn.
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
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.

Finall someone who realizes that they are negogiating. And I still figure nothign will get done, but I like this offer from the owners. It allow the players to share in the benefits if the game grows, and become partners, not "employees" as they were previously named. If they really want to be partners, then they would do some major tweaking on some of the offer (no rollback, no max salary(although it was just mentioned), no luxury tax(again just mentioned), and change the length of contracts for both rookies and vets. If they want to be seen as equals with the owners, then they should tweak this, help with the rule changes, and begin trying to get the game to grow. What needs to be realized, is that if they turn this game around and it grows, both sides can make a lot of money. If it stays the same, the owners are no longer losing, and the players are still being paid well for being high performance athletes (the reason I tossed that last cheezy line is, because they are being paid tons of money to most common folk like myself, but in the professional sport era that is pretty good pay)
 

Slewfoot

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
344
0
South Amboy NJ
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

Don't forget the league has offered to lower the age for UFA by a whopping 1 year from 31 to 30 !!
 

HuskyFlames

Registered User
Jan 12, 2004
4,671
0
Slewfoot said:
Don't forget the league has offered to lower the age for UFA by a whopping 1 year from 31 to 30 !!

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.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
Bill Watters reported earlier in the Leafs Lunch in the five minute segment he does with Jeff Marrick that Daly and Saskin have been talking on the phone since last Thursday.Also Watters said the rank and file members of the PA are willing to accept cost certainty because they want to play.The union officials want no part of cost certainty but the players want to return to the ice
 

Slewfoot

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
344
0
South Amboy NJ
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.
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....
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
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. :dunno:


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.

Nor can I, but there's plenty of room to counter. The players have been offered UNCAPPED profit sharing. So use that. Say that in exchange for the cap, we want 70% of profits over $40M. We also want our rollback back. We want maximum contract lengths of 6 years, not 3. We want to tweak your ideas on arbitration. We want UFA at 25, not 30.

The players have been given plenty of things to negotiate. If they just reject this and don't counter they're even stupider than they seem to be now.

(And don't bother regurgitating the "how can the players trust the owners" or "how are revenues defined" propaganda, since caps work in the NFL and NBA.)
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
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

In a perfect world where the PA comes back with a favorable counter proposal...

#1 isn't a shocker, and shouldn't be at this point in the game.

#2 is negotiable if not entirely eliminated.

#3, well at least it's brought to the table.

#4, well, see #3.

#5 is negotiable.

#6 will not come to fruition.

#7 will be negotiated to "mutual arbitration." The rest is fluff.

#8 would probably be accepted

#9... don't know what to say about that one.

#10 I thought was already part of the rumored player concessions.
 

davidwii

Registered User
Jan 20, 2005
53
0
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....


Because then the PA will ask for 25. If their willing to offer 28, they start with something higher. This is Negotiating. This is how it works.

Its not like number one on the list says:
1. All items on this proposal are non-negotiable.

Everything on this list can be negotiated for better numbers for the PA.

I mean good lord, their offering 50/50 profit sharing. These guys are already millionaires and their being offered more.... I wish my employer offered that....

For any of the people that think this offer is crap and say how the players would/should never accept it or even use it as a framework for a better numbers within the proposal.......what would you like it to have? What do you think would make it better????? Honestly, I'd love to hear some real well founded suggestions.

These players are the batteries that make the product of hockey work. Hockey though is THE PRODUCT!!!
 

orcatown

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
10,251
7,396
Visit site
The owners may be offering 50/50 profit sharing but they don't seem to be spelling out what revenues will be included. For example is pay TV included or selling club merchandise. If the owners really want a partnership shouldn't everything be included.

I think the owners know this is an offer the players cannot accept but may qualify as good faith bargaining and in the end replacement players.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
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
John, John, John, John, John, John,

You are missing the point.

Rebuttal from PA
#1. Hard Cap.....YES
#2. 24% rollback....Blow it out your ass.
#3. No revenue sharing details....Positive to NHLPA
#4. No profit sharing details......50% of everything over $60 Million.
#5. Maximum 3 year contracts....Forget this.
#6. Maximum salary per player .. not a chance.
#7. Arbitration now very much in the owners favor (right to defer, knocking off top two comparables, right to abolish arbitration altogether)............um no....equal arbritation.
#8. 4 year entry level deals.....Back to three year.
#9. No hold-out option....agreed.
#10. 75% qualifying offers for those making $800K plus.....90%

And start shaking hands and take some pictures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->