NHL has made a new, "secret" proposal to NHLPA??

[s7ark]

???????????????

Why would I? His explanation of guaranteed contracts is accurate.

I was dealing with another issue. Bettman claimed he had never discussed the issue of guaranteed contracts with the NHLPA. A letter from Bettman to Goodenow was published that contradicts what Bettman has claimed.

No Bettman said he never discussed removing guaranteed contracts with the NHLPA. That hasn't been proven false. Unlike Bob "We are not working on a proposal, oh btw, here it is" Goodenow, Bettman has been honest during the negotiations.

Also, relying on Brooks as backup to an arguement is iffy at best.

 

[Pepper]

Brooks is nothing but a NHLPA propaganda-machine, I don't trust anything from that guy anymore, especially when it comes to the new CBA.

 

[HckyFght*]

How many times do the owners have to say that they won't get rid of Guaranteed contracts before it is no longer brought up? Was Bettman's clear and concise statement during the most recent press conference unclear to you or something?

Hasn't Bettman also been saying since day one that a luxury tax is simply not part of the solution, and doesn't it get mentioned in nearly every arguement?
-HckyFght!

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Hasn't Bettman also been saying since day one that a luxury tax is simply not part of the solution, and doesn't it get mentioned in nearly every arguement?
-HckyFght!

Bettman is wrong. Like he has been with just about every big move he's made since becoming commish

 

[It Kills Me]

According to today's finnish newspaper Iltalehti, Christian Ruuttu (former 'Hawk & Sabre) the GM of FEL team Espoo Blues says that according to his sources NHL has already made a new secret proposal to NHLPA and the season could be saved.

Direct translation:

"as far as I know the new proposal has already been made"

"last thursday I was certain that the season would be cancelled but now I'm more hopeful, the season could be suddenly saved after all"

The same thing happened 10 years ago when Ruuttu was playing for Chicago Blackhawks and were their NHLPA representative

"suddenly we got the call that you must come over to USA in 2 days despite being told only one day earlier that there wouldn't be a season"

----

for those interested, Ruuttu has kept very close ties to NHL, especially Detroit which has sent their prospects & coaches to Finland for 2 years now to train with the FEL team.

We'll see...

This is just getting my hopes up.

 

[Russian Fan]

Brooks is nothing but a NHLPA propaganda-machine, I don't trust anything from that guy anymore, especially when it comes to the new CBA.

So when a journalist discuss about something that are NHLPA bound it's wrong & it's propaganda but when it's from the NHL owners side like TSN (The Source of the Nhl) , it's accurate & good ?

I think you should step aside & sometime that some journalist are just doing their job.

 

[struckmatch]

Christian Ruutu better not be full of crap.

 

[Accord]

Hopefully he's right.

 

[CarlRacki]

Bettman is wrong. Like he has been with just about every big move he's made since becoming commish

How do you know that? I mean, seriously, how do you know a luxury cap will work. Have you been granted some special providence? A crystal ball? Tarot cards? Ouija Board?
It's ridiculous for either side to say they know or they don't know which system will work. Here's all we do know:
1. The current system is not working. Whether you believe Leavitt or Forbes, it's clear the owners are losing substantially, something that simply does not happen in a healthy industry. When Detroit - one of the most successful teams in the league on and off the ice - is losing money, there's something wrong.
2. In the only other place a luxury cap has been tried - MLB - it has been mostly a failure. Small market teams are collecting more revenue, but with very few exceptions they're no more competitive.
3. In major sports leagues that have some semblance of a cap, it's been overwhelmingly successful.

Now, I don't have the ability to see the future, so I have to rely on history as an indicator. And based on history, a cap is much more successful than a luxury tax.

 

[vanlady]

So when a journalist discuss about something that are NHLPA bound it's wrong & it's propaganda but when it's from the NHL owners side like TSN (The Source of the Nhl) , it's accurate & good ?

I think you should step aside & sometime that some journalist are just doing their job.

Of course TSN is pro owner, they are owned by an NHL owner themselves.

 

[FraserOtt]

Of course TSN is pro owner, they are owned by an NHL owner themselves.

Isn't TSN owned by Bell GlobeMedia? I don't think they're affiliated with any NHL organization, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Winger98]

2. In the only other place a luxury cap has been tried - MLB - it has been mostly a failure. Small market teams are collecting more revenue, but with very few exceptions they're no more competitive.

Now, I don't have the ability to see the future, so I have to rely on history as an indicator. And based on history, a cap is much more successful than a luxury tax.

My only problem is that I don't think anyone ever thought that MLB's luxury tax system was going to be successful in anyway. It was a joke when it was announced and it's being proven to be a joke now. Even the NHLPA's own luxury tax proposals have more bite to them than MLB's. It's hard to judge a system when the only example of it being used was so ridiculously poorly setup that it was destined for failure.

 

[vanlady]

Isn't TSN owned by Bell GlobeMedia? I don't think they're affiliated with any NHL organization, correct me if I'm wrong.

Bell Global Media is one of the owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Check out the CRTC website, lots of interesting info.

 

[CarlRacki]

My only problem is that I don't think anyone ever thought that MLB's luxury tax system was going to be successful in anyway. It was a joke when it was announced and it's being proven to be a joke now. Even the NHLPA's own luxury tax proposals have more bite to them than MLB's. It's hard to judge a system when the only example of it being used was so ridiculously poorly setup that it was destined for failure.

Fair enough, but (as you somewhat allude) the NHLPA's proposal isn't all that stringent either.
The bottom line is we want to deal in knowns, what's known is that salary caps work in the NFL and NBA. Anything else about suggested tax plans, etc. is just guesswork.
My hope is the two sides meet in the middle and work under a reasonable soft cap, a la the NBA.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

....
My hope is the two sides meet in the middle and work under a reasonable soft cap, a la the NBA.

curious .. if the players said they would work with an NBA style cap and the owners refused to even come to the table, would you still stand behind this lockout as neccesary ?

dr

 

[CarlRacki]

curious .. if the players said they would work with an NBA style cap and the owners refused to even come to the table, would you still stand behind this lockout as neccesary ?

dr

No. I'd view that as a major concession by the players, unlike their rollback.
That said, with players out there saying they'll never, ever accept a cap, I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.

Now, same question for you. If the owners next week proposed a NBA-style system and the players rejected it, would you continue to stand behind the NHLPA?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No. I'd view that as a major concession by the players, unlike their rollback.
That said, with players out there saying they'll never, ever accept a cap, I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.

Now, same question for you. If the owners next week proposed a NBA-style system and the players rejected it, would you continue to stand behind the NHLPA?

fair question .. i was expecting it ..

fact is, i dont stand behind the NHLPA. my problem is that i dont support locking out the players to get the hard cap.

1) i think if the owners were really interested in the good of the game, they could come up with a solution that doesnt require a shut down.

2) i am not convinced a salary cap will even solve the problems the FANS care about.

3) i dont care if billionaires lose a few million for my entertainment. Especially when they really dont need to shut down the game to resolve it.

the owners, whether i like it or not, will shut down the game to get the hard cap, and for that, i hold them accountaible.

but, if the owners were interested in an NBA cap and the players still refused it, i would say they are even dumber than they look.

dr

 

[CarlRacki]

fair question .. i was expecting it ..

fact is, i dont stand behind the NHLPA. my problem is that i dont support locking out the players to get the hard cap.

1) i think if the owners were really interested in the good of the game, they could come up with a solution that doesnt require a shut down.

2) i am not convinced a salary cap will even solve the problems the FANS care about.

3) i dont care if billionaires lose a few million for my entertainment. Especially when they really dont need to shut down the game to resolve it.

the owners, whether i like it or not, will shut down the game to get the hard cap, and for that, i hold them accountaible.

but, if the owners were interested in an NBA cap and the players still refused it, i would say they are even dumber than they look.

dr

Fair enough. I'd only point out that, from a strategic point of view, the owners would have no hope of getting a CBA friendly to them without the lockout. If the game went on under the terms of the former CBA, as it would without the lockout, the owners would have zero leverage and the players would zero reason to bargain. And it's much more difficult - and likely to anger the customers - to lock the players out at midseason than it is before the season starts.
As for billionaires losing money, the problem with that is the league is going to have a very hard time attracting good ownership under the premise of "Join the NHL and lose millions." Can they afford it? Maybe. But those guys/corporations didn't get where they're at by putting their time and capital into losing investments.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

The bottom line is we want to deal in knowns, what's known is that salary caps work in the NFL and NBA. Anything else about suggested tax plans, etc. is just guesswork.
My hope is the two sides meet in the middle and work under a reasonable soft cap, a la the NBA.

Part of Gary Bettman's entourage? A salary cap doesn't work as well as some think. NFL teams go over the cap on average by 5 mill via bonuses and deferred payment. Don't believe me? How much did Mike Vick sign for? 130 mill for 10 years with 30 mill as a signing bonus! The NFL system works because of significant REVENUE SHARING and a huge TV contract as we all friggin now by now.

Meanwhile, the soft cap in the NBA is a joke. Team are so commonly over the cap and there is still significant payroll differences.

If the NHL wants parity, the rich owners will share their money with Edmonton and the like. Yet, they don't want to. Instead, these teams want ticket prices to remain status quo while raking in huge amounts of money by instituting a cap of some sort. At the same time, the small market clubs will still struggle financially since a cap of 30 mill is possibly too high for them. Furthermore, the large market clubs will find some way to circumvent the cap to some extent (as is so commonly done in other pro leagues), thus giving them more leverage against financially strapped clubs.

In the end, you got large market teams in Detroit, Colorado, and Philly making more money than before and still having a significant upper hand against markets. YAAAYYYY NHL!

At the same time, you're absolutely correct in stating both sides need to meet in the middle to find a system that parallels the NBA, but with more revenue sharing. A luxury tax system will not do.

 

[CarlRacki]

Part of Gary Bettman's entourage? A salary cap doesn't work as well as some think. NFL teams go over the cap on average by 5 mill via bonuses and deferred payment. Don't believe me? How much did Mike Vick sign for? 130 mill for 10 years with 30 mill as a signing bonus!

Meanwhile, the soft cap in the NBA is a joke. Team are so commonly over the cap and there is still significant payroll differences.

Any player salary in the NFL counts against the cap, including bonuses. The only difference is that with bonuses, the money is spread out over the term of the contract rather than just one year. And if that player is retires or is cut mid-cntract, every remaining penny of the bonus counts against the following year's cap.

As for whether it works, the proof is in the pudding. The NFL is the most competitive, balanced professional sports league out there. This is largely because of the cap.

As for the soft cap, teams are over the "cap" because it is "soft". That's the whole point. It allows teams to go above the ceiling to sign certain players, namely their own players and role-playing veterans who otherwise would be hurt most by a hard cap. The other reason some teams are over the cap is the "sign-and-trade" which I would hope an NHL system does not allow.

 

[deathbear]

any further word on these "negotiations"?

 

[djhn579]

Part of Gary Bettman's entourage? A salary cap doesn't work as well as some think. NFL teams go over the cap on average by 5 mill via bonuses and deferred payment. Don't believe me? How much did Mike Vick sign for? 130 mill for 10 years with 30 mill as a signing bonus! The NFL system works because of significant REVENUE SHARING and a huge TV contract as we all friggin now by now.

Mike Vick signing for $130M has nothing to do with going over the cap. The $30M signing bonus will be paid out immediately, but for cap purposes will only count for $3M per year (unless he is cut before the end of the contract). The rest of the contract averages out to $10M per year, but how is it structured? Is it back loaded:
$3M the first year,
$4M the 2nd,
$5M the 3rd
$6M
$7M
$10M
$12M
$15M
$18M
$20M

If so, he probably won't see the last three years of that contract where $53M of that contract is due. That is usually how these contracts are structured, and since the contracts are not guaranteed, there is no real penalty for cutting the player, and that is why signing bonuses are so important in the NFL.

As for the other bonuses, they do count towards the cap, but they look at what is "achievable" to make a decision to count a bonus against a cap. They do that by looking at the previous season. If a player had a $1M bonus for getting 10 sacks, and only had 6 the year before, that $1M will not be counted against the cap.

The only way to get around doing something like that would be to say that all bonuses count against the cap, which would put more money in the owners pocket if those bonuses are not achieved.


Edit: Found this link...

http://www.afl.atfreeweb.com/AFL/NFL Salary Cap 101.htm

LIKELY TO BE EARNED (LTBE)

Other amounts players earn count against the salary cap only if they are likely to be earned ('LTBE'). These other amounts include, but are not limited to, performance and honors incentives, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses and off-season workout bonuses.

As noted in my previous column of July 14, 1999, to determine whether a performance or honor incentive is LTBE for veteran players, you need to examine the player's and/or team's prior year on-field performance. If a running back will earn a $100,000 incentive if he has 1,000 rushing yards in 2000, his 1999 performance must be analyzed to determine if the incentive is LTBE for 2000 and counts against his team's 2000 salary cap. If the player rushed for 1,000 or more yards in 1999 then the incentive is LTBE in 2000 (counts against the 2000 salary cap). If the player rushed for less than 1,000 yards in 1999 then the incentive is not likely to be earned (NLTBE) and does not count against the salary cap in 2000. The same rule applies for any team incentives that are negotiated. Note there are some exceptions to these basic rules.

Meanwhile, the soft cap in the NBA is a joke. Team are so commonly over the cap and there is still significant payroll differences.

Agreed. I don't know much about the NBA cap, but what I have heard is it isn't very good, but still much better than baseballs cap

If the NHL wants parity, the rich owners will share their money with Edmonton and the like. Yet, they don't want to. Instead, these teams want ticket prices to remain status quo while raking in huge amounts of money by instituting a cap of some sort. At the same time, the small market clubs will still struggle financially since a cap of 30 mill is possibly too high for them. Furthermore, the large market clubs will find some way to circumvent the cap to some extent (as is so commonly done in other pro leagues), thus giving them more leverage against financially strapped clubs.

In the end, you got large market teams in Detroit, Colorado, and Philly making more money than before and still having a significant upper hand against markets. YAAAYYYY NHL!

At the same time, you're absolutely correct in stating both sides need to meet in the middle to find a system that parallels the NBA, but with more revenue sharing. A luxury tax system will not do.

I agree that more revenue sharing should be included, but that is not as important as putting some kind of cap in place. If you had 100% revenue sharing and no cap, you would still have teams that don't mind losing money (they are doing it now, why would they change?), and those teams will continue to drive up salaries. The only difference is that the loses would be spread out more evenly among all teams.

I don't know what the answer ultimately will be, but there does have to be a strong limit on what teams can spend on salaries, or it will not achieve the objectives of reducing payroll disparities and giving cost certainty.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Any player salary in the NFL counts against the cap, including bonuses. The only difference is that with bonuses, the money is spread out over the term of the contract rather than just one year. And if that player is retires or is cut mid-cntract, every remaining penny of the bonus counts against the following year's cap.

As for whether it works, the proof is in the pudding. The NFL is the most competitive, balanced professional sports league out there. This is largely because of the cap.

As for the soft cap, teams are over the "cap" because it is "soft". That's the whole point. It allows teams to go above the ceiling to sign certain players, namely their own players and role-playing veterans who otherwise would be hurt most by a hard cap. The other reason some teams are over the cap is the "sign-and-trade" which I would hope an NHL system does not allow.

The NFL's cap does succeed in its goal of increasing parity (mediocrity?). Whether you like the way it does so is another story.

However, comparing the NFL's cap and its goals to the proposed NHL cap and its goals is not valid in the least. The NHL could care less about competitive balance. Their reason for wanting a cap is to maximize profits, nothing more. If they cared about competitive balance, they would have included massive rvenue sharing as in the NFL. The differences in revenue sharing and guaranteed contracts mean that what the NHL has proposed is nowhere close to what the NFL has.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

ugh

besides, it is stupid to compare the NFL to the NHL, obviously.

The NHL is a developmental based league, kinda like baseball, iwith minor league systems etc.

The NFL has a lot more players that are replaceable than NHL teams.

Also, the nFL is tv driven, the NHL is gate driven

also, the NFL shares a lot of revenue sharing, the NHL almost none.

So why the hell is anyone comparing the 2 leagues?

 

[tantalum]

curious .. if the players said they would work with an NBA style cap and the owners refused to even come to the table, would you still stand behind this lockout as neccesary ?

dr

Except that Dapy has already said on Off The Record that such a concession would bring the owners to the table. Why? because once again the major issue is somehow tying payroll to league revenues...something which is in the NBA CBA. That is the type of framework they are looking for from the players to begin negotiation. That is the hurdle. One side has to jump the hurdle and give up on the major sticking point to get this thing rolling...the players agree to tie salaries to revenues and get down to business and discuss what should be included and where etc. They even then get to actually have input on revenue sharing. AS it stands right now the players have accepted no stake or risk in the business so don't have the leverage to try to enforce revenue sharing changes. Or the owners say fine we just want a more harsh tax system.

Thing is the players have openly admitted with their proposal that the league is in trouble. Not only did they offer a huge pay cut (not nearly as effective as many believe IMO but signficant). They based the bulk of the CBA proposal on the Levitt numbers. If one group truly does not believe numbers they will not lend any sort of credence to those numbers. By incorporating in writing in a document intended to form the framework of a legally binding document the NHLPA acknowledges the validity of those numbers. Because of this, the other concessions, and yes even public opinion the owners know that they are in the drivers seat. That wasn't the case in '94. As they are in the drivers seat it is not likely the owners will be the ones to capitulate on the major issue. That's the sticking point...the one major issue. Once one side yields on that the rest is really going to be pretty quick negotiation. And really I think the sooner the players accept a hard cap the better off they will be. Come October of next year the owners will not just be putting harder screws to the players to play under a cap it will be a smaller cap and the rest will look very much like they proposed a little while ago.

Remember these proposals were the formal opening positions not the little talks and offers here and there. Not the BS 5% paycut or $30 mil cap (notice in the serious opening proposals the paycut went up considerably as did the cap). The NHL offer was serious. They outlined there best possible scenario as the players outlined a few days prior. Indeally the NHL wants to abolish arbitration but it knows it isn't going to happen...it's a negotiation poin. The arbitration matter, rookie caps, signing bonuses etc.. can all be negotiated in short order once the big hurdle is jumped. With the fundamental issue is decided, the rest is just gravy.

Question is who goes over the hurdle? Why would anyone expect it would be the owners doing the hurdle jumping after the union acknowledged the state of the league finances?

I don't think it will be the owners. I think it will be the players and the sooner the better for them. The longer the situation continues the weaker the union's leverage.