NHL.com has new proposal posted

[John Flyers Fan]

You are missing the point.

Rebuttal from PA
#1. Hard Cap.....YES are we bumping up to 60% ???
#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.

If yes, and the hard cap is phased over two years, both at the ceiling and floor then we may have something.

 

[Slats432]

If yes, and the hard cap is phased over two years, both at the ceiling and floor then we may have something.

Oh come on....been so long since a star has been in Edmonton...give me the dispersal.... :lol

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Oh come on....been so long since a star has been in Edmonton...give me the dispersal.... :lol

Sure ... who do you want ... LeClair, Amonte, Burke, Yashin ???

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

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

If I am reading your post correctly you are indicating your first 10 points as "owner wins"

Why do you assume # 5 to be pro-owner? I see it as neutral. If a player "breaks-out" than at most would only have to wait a further 2 years to "cash in".

Point #7, way to omit information to argue your case. The players also could omit 2 comparables (low comparables). If the owners eliminated arbitration then the players would get UFA age lowered to 28.

Since details for Points #3, and #4, have not been provided how can you assume they to be pro owner?

 

[Cole Caulifield]

I don't understand why people say the owners gave up nothing. Here's the breakdown of the proposal as I see it :

Owners give to the players :

-- Unilateral Union right to reopen Agreement after Year 4 (after the 2008-09 season).
--Eligibility to arbitration as soon as rookie contract is over
-- NHL Minimum Salary increased to $300,000 per year.
-- The parties agree that the new Player Compensation System shall ensure that total League-wide Player Compensation in any year of the new CBA will not: (1) be below 53% of the League's revenues, or
-- Profit Sharing with the Players on a 50 (Players)/50 (Clubs) basis over and above a League-wide profit threshold to be negotiated.
-- Each year's accounting will be performed by an independent accounting firm jointly selected by the NHL and the NHLPA.
--Fine and draft pick loss for for any Club offense for failure to disclose required financial information.
-- Establishment of a joint Owner-Player Council (with League and Union representation as well) to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest relating both to business and game-related matters.

And the Cherry :

-- To compensate the Players for a shortened 2004-05 regular season with a full Playoffs, we understand that there will have to be a distribution out of revenues generated from the 2005 Stanley Cup Playoffs to ensure that the Players receive the agreed upon 53% of League Revenues.

 

[Wetcoaster]

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.)

How can the players trust the owners?

How can they deal with a concept proposal at this late date that contains no definition of revenue?

Profit sharing - what is the threshold?

Caps are not working that well in the NFL or NBA according to their PA's. In thise psorts the books were opened completely, the definition of revenue was negotiated and then the percentage was fixed. This concept does nothing to advance the process.

BTW contrary to what a number of pro-owners have claimed there is NO significant revenue sharing - it is just some undefined percentage of play-off revenues as i predicted.

Put out a proposal with details and projections as the players have done and maybe there is something to counter. But not another "concept" offer which could have been scrawled on cocktail napkin.

Practically everything in this concept offer is to be negotiated later with virtually no details or parameters. It is a little late in the day for these type of offers.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If I am reading your post correctly you are indicating your first 10 points as "owner wins"

Why do you assume # 5 to be pro-owner? I see it as neutral. If a player "breaks-out" than at most would only have to wait a further 2 years to "cash in".

Point #7, way to omit information to argue your case. The players also could omit 2 comparables (low comparables). If the owners eliminated arbitration then the players would get UFA age lowered to 28.

Since details for Points #3, and #4, have not been provided how can you assume they to be pro owner?

Shorter term contracts are definitely in the owners favor.

Omitting the low comparables, doesn't help the player as much as omitting the two high comparables hurts him.

If you notice the players aren't asking for the UFA age to be lowered. Arbitration is much more important to them. Without arbitration the UFA age would neeb to be lowered to 42 or so.

My point on #3 & 4 is that why did the NHL conveniently leave out the details ??? They didn't leave out any details on things important to them, but on these two items that are supposed to be pro-player ... they are extremely vague. Coincidence ???

 

[Dr Love]

If I am reading your post correctly you are indicating your first 10 points as "owner wins"

Why do you assume # 5 to be pro-owner? I see it as neutral. If a player "breaks-out" than at most would only have to wait a further 2 years to "cash in".

Of course it's pro-owner. Bobby Holik at $9 million for 3 years is a lot better for a franchise than for 5 years at $9 million. Three year contracts avoid the albatrosses of Holik, LeClair, Yashin, et al.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Shorter term contracts are definitely in the owners favor.

Omitting the low comparables, doesn't help the player as much as omitting the two high comparables hurts him.

If you notice the players aren't asking for the UFA age to be lowered. Arbitration is much more important to them. Without arbitration the UFA age would neeb to be lowered to 42 or so.

My point on #3 & 4 is that why did the NHL conveniently leave out the details ??? They didn't leave out any details on things important to them, but on these two items that are supposed to be pro-player ... they are extremely vague. Coincidence ???

It seems like the players lose a lot because they had way too much in the first place. They had every inflationary tools in the box included in the last CBA. Now there's no inflation, but only a fair way to deal with a player market value.

 

[orcatown]

e=CH

THIS NOT ESTABLISHING AN OPEN MARKET. THIS IS ESTABLISHING A FIXED COST WHICH LIMITS THE OPEN MARKET. YOU MIGHT AGREE WITH RESTRICTING SALARIES BUT SURELY THE OWNERS ARE NOT PROMOTING A FAIR MARKET PRICE - ONLY THING THAT DOES THAT IS AN COMPLETELY OPEN MARKET. THEN MARKET VALUE IS ESTABLISHED.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Of course it's pro-owner. Bobby Holik at $9 million for 3 years is a lot better for a franchise than for 5 years at $9 million. Three year contracts avoid the albatrosses of Holik, LeClair, Yashin, et al.

I don't see why it's necessarily a huge pro-owner point.

And to counter the examples you gave I could certainly point to Regehr's 5 year, 10.5 million dollar contract. Flames certainly aren't disappointed with that long term deal.

 

[Wetcoaster]

It seems like the players lose a lot because they had way too much in the first place. They had every inflationary tools in the box included in the last CBA. Now there's no inflation, but only a fair way to deal with a player market value.

Not according to Brian Burke who negotiated the last CBA. He has stated that the owners were given the tools to make the system work and did not use them. How is that the fault of the players????

It brings to mind the old saying that it is a poor workman who blames his tools.

Also the popular sentiment in 1995 was that the owners scored a clear win over the players.

"I have never been more embarrassed to work in the NHL as I was on July 1st and 2nd [2001]. I know we can't support the salaries. I know that some of the teams who have spent that money are doing it without the financial capability to pay the money. I'm running my business like a business. I'm going head-to-head with people who are crazy, as far as I'm concerned."
-Vancouver Canucks GM Brian Burke, July 2001

"The challenge for the future is making sure that we have an economic system that enables all of our clubs to be economically viable, stable and competitive where they're currently located. All of our fans need to know at the start of the season that their team has as good a chance of winning the Stanley Cup as any other team. It can't be based solely on how much teams spend on payroll."
-NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, February 1st, 2002

"Obviously, [Bettman]'s making an assumption here. He seems to be convinced that all the owners are capable of creating a competitive team. There never has been the slightest bit of evidence that this is the case. There are some owners who know what they're doing and others who are totally inept. If Bettman doesn't know which of his governors is which, a list can be provided on request."
- Al Strachan, Toronto Sun

 

[Dr Love]

I don't see why it's necessarily a huge pro-owner point.

And to counter the examples you gave I could certainly point to Regehr's 5 year, 10.5 million dollar contract. Flames certainly aren't disappointed with that long term deal.

Yes, but his raise won't be a burden on the books because it would be only 3 years. It also puts everyone on equal footing--my best players are only on 3 year deals, but so are yours.

 

[firstroundbust]

That said, I'm not on the NHLPA's side or the owner's side. I just want to see some damn hockey.

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

Shorter term contracts are definitely in the owners favor.

Omitting the low comparables, doesn't help the player as much as omitting the two high comparables hurts him.

If you notice the players aren't asking for the UFA age to be lowered. Arbitration is much more important to them. Without arbitration the UFA age would neeb to be lowered to 42 or so.

My point on #3 & 4 is that why did the NHL conveniently leave out the details ??? They didn't leave out any details on things important to them, but on these two items that are supposed to be pro-player ... they are extremely vague. Coincidence ???

Would you care to eloborate on some of your statements?

Whether the players asked for the UFA to be lowered or not does not mean that it does not benefit the players.

Again point #3 and #4 can not be considered to be pro-owner until the details are defined. I see it as a a door being left wide open for negotiation as it is something that the PA would be interested in.

 

[Wolfpack]

Pretty shrewd move by the league to raise the minimum salary to $300,000. There were a lot of players who were looking at making less than that after a 24% rollback.

 

[mackdogs*]

Do any of you think this proposal is actually full & complete and is one the NHL actually intended the PA to sign? Pessimism is obviously sweeping the board but there's no reason to lose common sense. All of these details will be ironed out, I'm referring to profit and revenue sharing. Assuming these bode in favor of one party vs. the other is just letting your bias show through. All of these will be hammered out in lots of fine print and checked over by lawyers to ensure they are legit. Let's not all jump the gun here. No reason for the gloom n' doom attitude.

This is a great proposal IMO by the NHL, one that needs a lot of tweaking but has a lot of starting points. The league has covered the issue of smaller market making the minimum payroll by using playoff revenue sharing. Most players (particularly Chelios) have taken the argument that small market teams will be hurt by the payroll minimum. Apparently not.

I have to wonder if the thought of some of the players signing to play in the UHL crossed the minds of the people involved in making this proposal. It seems ok to me compared to $500/wk

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Pretty shrewd move by the league to raise the minimum salary to $300,000. There were a lot of players who were looking at making less than that after a 24% rollback.

Not really. The Eastern Conference currently has one player signed to a contract of less than $500K. So even with the 24% rollback essentially nobody that currently has a contract will be under $300K.

 

[pei fan]

The Owners have offered more than I thought they should have,but it doesn't
matter anyway-the PA will not negotiate a reasonable offer.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Not according to Brian Burke who negotiated the last CBA. He has stated that the owners were given the tools to make the system work and did not use them. How is that the fault of the players????

It brings to mind the old saying that it is a poor workman who blames his tools.

Also the popular sentiment in 1995 was that the owners scored a clear win over the players.

"I have never been more embarrassed to work in the NHL as I was on July 1st and 2nd [2001]. I know we can't support the salaries. I know that some of the teams who have spent that money are doing it without the financial capability to pay the money. I'm running my business like a business. I'm going head-to-head with people who are crazy, as far as I'm concerned."
-Vancouver Canucks GM Brian Burke, July 2001

"The challenge for the future is making sure that we have an economic system that enables all of our clubs to be economically viable, stable and competitive where they're currently located. All of our fans need to know at the start of the season that their team has as good a chance of winning the Stanley Cup as any other team. It can't be based solely on how much teams spend on payroll."
-NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, February 1st, 2002

"Obviously, [Bettman]'s making an assumption here. He seems to be convinced that all the owners are capable of creating a competitive team. There never has been the slightest bit of evidence that this is the case. There are some owners who know what they're doing and others who are totally inept. If Bettman doesn't know which of his governors is which, a list can be provided on request."
- Al Strachan, Toronto Sun

If you can't see that the 100%-110% qualifying rights aren't tools for the owners.

That arbitration being a unilateral player's right wasn't a tool for the owners.

That the arbitration system itself (comparisons) was incredibly flawed.

That the RFA's offer sheets worked only in the players favors.

Etc, etc

Then I don't see why I should argue this with you.


Who cares what the popular sentiment is/was/will be ? Since is the popular sentiment a good gauge of reality ?

Your Burke quote is the proof that the system was flawed. You can't have 30 responsible owners at the same time. It's never happened in any sports. Because sports are fundamentally different than other business. The people who buy sports franchise rarely do so because they think it's an incredible business venture. Some do, but most don't. Most of them buy it for the entertainment value and for the glamour. The problem here is that the NHL has to be a profitable business as a whole and only a league wide system that ensures this (CBA) can work.

Anyway is there a good reason why should the players be given tools to drive their team into the ground when their owner is an idiot ?

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

Yes, but his raise won't be a burden on the books because it would be only 3 years. It also puts everyone on equal footing--my best players are only on 3 year deals, but so are yours.

At the end of that 3 years if the Flames wanted to resign Reghr he would be due a significant raise. The 3 year contract Max would benefit the player in this example because his permormance has significantly improved since he signed his previous contract but now he can get his raise 2 years sooner.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Do any of you think this proposal is actually full & complete and is one the NHL actually intended the PA to sign? Pessimism is obviously sweeping the board but there's no reason to lose common sense. All of these details will be ironed out, I'm referring to profit and revenue sharing. Assuming these bode in favor of one party vs. the other is just letting your bias show through. All of these will be hammered out in lots of fine print and checked over by lawyers to ensure they are legit. Let's not all jump the gun here. No reason for the gloom n' doom attitude.

This is a great proposal IMO by the NHL, one that needs a lot of tweaking but has a lot of starting points. The league has covered the issue of smaller market making the minimum payroll by using playoff revenue sharing. Most players (particularly Chelios) have taken the argument that small market teams will be hurt by the payroll minimum. Apparently not.

I have to wonder if the thought of some of the players signing to play in the UHL crossed the minds of the people involved in making this proposal. It seems ok to me compared to $500/wk

Let's see.

The NHLPA presents a 250+ page offer with facts, detailed definitions, projections, graphs and tables.

The NHL owners present another set of "concepts" that could have been scrawled on a cocktail napkin.

You do not "iron out the details" later. The details are the deal.

As I predicted earlier another proposal with no details - therefore no chance.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Let's see.

The NHLPA presents a 250+ page offer with facts, detailed definitions, projections, graphs and tables.

The NHL owners present another set of "concepts" that could have been scrawled on a cocktail napkin.

You do not "iron out the details" later. The details are the deal.

As I predicted earlier another proposal with no details - therefore no chance.

What use is there to take the time to make a complete and detailed offer if huge philosophical differences remain ? The players have to accept the outline first before starting to argue about the details. It's the main point of this lockout.

 

[Wisent]

...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

Cool Hand Luke?

 

[shakes]

Not really. The Eastern Conference currently has one player signed to a contract of less than $500K. So even with the 24% rollback essentially nobody that currently has a contract will be under $300K.

Didn't the NHL counter proposal to the roll back have some sort of limit at the low end on who it would effect? And didn't they infer that it was fairer to the lower paid player to do it that way? I wonder what happened to the owners altruism?