NHL needs a deal by June 1st

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by The Joker*, May 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. The Joker*

    The Joker* Guest

    The NHL essentially wants and needs a deal by June 1st. If it goes past that, the league and the FA situation will be a complete mess.
     
  2. CantHaveTkachev

    CantHaveTkachev call on me

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,318
    Likes Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St. OILbert
    you sure? nothing has been discussed about FA yet...it's all in the next cba
     
  3. bladoww

    bladoww Team of the Future

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mhmm.
     
  4. Habs4Life

    Habs4Life Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Saint John, NB
    Is this a theory or something that the NHL has said? Link maybe?
     
  5. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    That's all theory.

    Any transition issues - unsigned draftees, RFA qualifying offers, etc - will be dealt with in a new CBA.

    Just because the current CBA says draftees must be signed by June 1 or go back into the draft (or UFA if overage), doesn't mean squat if the new CBA says elsewise.

    All these transition issues will be dealt with explicitly in the new CBA, which takes precedence over whatever was said the old expired one.
     
  6. The Joker*

    The Joker* Guest

    Sportsnet.ca -- The intangibles of the NHL lockout are starting to show, and for some of the league's best players it may mean switching uniforms.

    Under the expired CBA, teams must offer restricted free-agents making less than the league average at least a 10 percent raise before midnight on July 1 to retain their rights. Since the league is currently not operating, regular rules of engagement do not apply.

    In the case of top-tier players, a category which includes Thrashers Dany Heatley and Ilya Kovalchuk, players may consider legal action to become free-agents when the July 1 deadline passes.
     
    Last edited by moderator Sotnos: May 3, 2005
  7. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    team 1040 vancouver is reporting espn is out if a deal is not done by june 1 - i heard it but am still looking for the link
     
  8. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,527
    Likes Received:
    952
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Interested on what Goodenow's take on this is .. They are clearly not talking , yet you would think that players and agents are seeking clarification and obviously not getting the same response as Daly is offering..

    If it was so cut and dry the issue would die , but it isn't ..

    While most agree the CBA will address it, its also true that both sides must agree.

    So getting the NHLPA to agree to it should it be an issue, may not be an easy thing to do,..... almost like getting blood out of a stone ..
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2005
  9. grego

    grego Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Draftee rights will likely remain to the team under a new CBA. The NHLPA has shown in its history, that it will throw the pay of new guys and their rights on the table very fast. As was evidenced by how quickly the NHLPA was considering restrictions to rookie contracts and players far earlier then they would consider any restriction to any other player.
     
  10. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    The CBA WILL address all these issues, even if individual agents waste their clients money getting meaningless court rulings. In addition, the owners will have little difficulty getting favorable terms once the paychecks begin going by the wayside and Goodenow is tossed aside.
     
  11. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,527
    Likes Received:
    952
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Well I guess you could hold out hope for that .. Hardly a single player during this lengthy dispute has said a bad word about the job Goodenow is doing .. And the early ones that spoke out got their answers at the NHLPA meeting .. Of which another is upcoming at the end of may ..

    What you also feel to realize was that Goodenow and Bettman attended very few of the meetings in fact last year .. So the players should blame Saskin and Linden, Gartner, Damphousse, Guerin, and the rest of the executive committee for no deal being reached .. With Goodenow out of the direct dealings the council had all the opportunity to force a membership vote if it had received anything from the Owners group of substance. However the lost season should be a good indication that the proposals they have received to date are better served to wipe their a$$es with , then sign on the dotted line .. When you are willing to give up 1.2 bil in Salary you must think its worth it ..

    If there was this big revolution brewing and under way then it would take a majority 350+ players to agree to a proposal, then you couldn't keep that quiet or contained from the papers. They would be filled with disgruntled players comments about the job Goodenow is doing or not doing for them.

    The biggest factor in this is that hockey players are proud and stubborn people, and the NHL insulted them by claiming they are Autoworkers on an assemble line and easily replaceable.. Saying that the players are not the game .. Well those kind of tactics might just force replacement players and their possible failure if the players think they are right .. They might just let the owners try to prove them wrong on this issue .. Everyone agrees that putting the decision of this in the hands of the Fans is a risky situation particularly for the Owners ..

    As far as pay cheques going by the wayside .. That issue is just as negotiable as RFA status and unsigned draft picks and would also need to be addressed one way or the other in the next CBA .. Its actually the biggest bargaining chip the owners have really .. If they hope to get most of the things they want in their favour in the next CBA, they could in fact bribe the players with the ability to agree that all valid contracts that existed pre-lockout could be extended 1 year as a result of the lockout. That solution address equally the issue of the soon to become RFA without qualifying issue. That tactic in fact not only may entice the players that have lost a year of NHL life, but are now not going to be out any money via the lockout, and that is greatest advantage the Owners have in the negotiations. It also avoids all possible anti-trust law suits if the players contracts are honoured and extended. That is a guaranteed way to get Goodenow to agree on this particular issue. IMO
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2005
  12. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest


    It will be interesting to see the different flavour the meeting has with more European players involved. Still, I expect them to come out singing a stirring rendition of "Cumbaya" for the press and PA cheerleaders to eat up.

    At the meetings or not, Goodenow was firmly in control, as was Bettman for the owners. The one time Bobby lost control we almost got a deal done, but he managed to grab it back and embarrass Wayne and Mario in the process. Pretending that the leadrers needed to be physically present to control the direction of the meetings is absurd.

    I'd say the lost season was a good indication of the players putting their trust in Bob to get a deal done. I imagine that Tie Domi isn't the only players currently questioning the wisdom of that decision, especially since the cost of his failure was to the tune of 1.2 B.

    When the paychecks start going missing in the fall, the rumble will begin. Goody won't last long once it starts.

    Proud and stubborn bought Bobby a year. It won't last through a second. If the players had viable alternatives, then he'd be fine. Since there is nowhere else to earn comparable money to even the worst league offer, the players will cave.

    The biggest bargaining chip the owners have is an NHL paycheck. They won't need any other chips once the PA caves and Goodenow is tossed. However, if they are smart, they throw the new leader a bone or two to help smooth the waters and start forming the partnership BOTH sides need. If they decide that honouring existing contracts is that bone, then so be it, but I have my doubts that the owners or the PA will push for that particular concession. The owners because the cost will be too high for a severely damaged league and the players because it helps some, but hurts others (and the players it helps already made out like bandits under the previous CBA).
     
    Last edited by moderator : May 3, 2005
  13. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,527
    Likes Received:
    952
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Euro players playing at home is not a hardship for them .. That is their home countries and often they cut their NHL careers short in order to raise their families back in home countries. Lots of Euro's each year are forced out of the NHL and return home to continue playing. Your boy Alfredsson won a Euro championship, is playing the World Championships for his country, got a year of home cooking and all it cost him was his NHL salary and that is not even a guarantee yet.

    Your solidarity 1 day and revolution the next makes little to no sense .. What purpose does that serve, if you're about to execute your leader ??

    Sure he has influence, but so do the council .. For your statement to be evenly remotely true you would have to believe that Saskin and the council have a complete different view then Goodenow, and no say or power and that is complete nonsense .. Goodenow is there to assist them in negotiations, not over rule them .. That is no different for Bettman as he does what the owners tell him to do .. He does not tell them .. Revenue sharing from big market teams is a good example .. Bettman can request it from owners but not demand it, nor force it as he works for them ..


    Sure both sides are unhappy the season was lost .. No different then owners who made big money even under the Old CBA. They would have taken the very first proposal the NHLPA offered of the 24 % rollback, and played at least 1/2 a season. They decided to sacrifice for the group as a whole and the mentality of the NHLPA group is no different.


    Again sure there is pressure .. but you would have to believe that any other person in charge of the NHLPA last season would have taken a previous NHL offer .. Since Linden and the councel felt as strongly as Goodenow, changing the figure head leader would not have changed the outcome and the $1.2 Bil lost regardless IMO.



    That might be true, but unless you are Clairvoyant and can read the tea leaves your guess is a good as anyone else .. The NHLPA put aside union funds (lockout pay)expecting a dispute possibly going as long 1 1/2 - 2 years .. They warned us even before the lockout began that this was going to be long.. Owen Nolan and his agent 2 years prior to the lockout had a clause in this contract added that said he gets another year if the season is lost ... That suggests that only you are surprised at the actual year being lost. The NHLPA and the NHL for that matter with its War Chest also anticipated this and made plans accordingly.. At this stage a NHL crumbling is also still quiet possible as the Owners take the best NHLPA proposal they get in order to no lose a second season, particularly in Replacement players become a NO GO because of BC and Quebec provincial legislation ..


    You certainly have a very one side view of this dispute .. In order to play the game the players are going to take major pay cuts and that starts with their own 24% rollback. The NHL proposals to date are so restrictive in some areas that players like Crosby are threatening to play in Europe to earn more $$ then entry level contracts allow .. So you have players that are not even members yet disappointed by the current negotiations, one can only imagine what actual players feel.

    Not pushing to have their guaranteed contracts honoured makes no sense .. It not only pays them lost wages but older players actually get that last year .. Players like Hull, Yzerman, Messier, Roberts, and many others get to finish their NHL careers on the ice not in the stands. Tie Domi the player you keep quoting may in fact have played his last game without that year extension you refuse to accept. There is zero useful purpose that sacrificing their wages would have that makes sense..Before you give me Arbitration rights nonsense look up that latest NHL proposal that says all players are eligible for Arbitration once their entry level contracts end.

    In a CBA that is signed that gives the owners their Hard Cap with Linkage, the poor teams Revenue Sharing and retains RFA and Unsigned rights, and avoids paying back guaranteed contracts.

    Then what is in it for the players??.

    Those are all things that favour Owners .. so you believe in order to get a deal done the players should also agree to losing a year of NHL life and NHL wages to make it happen. Many current NHLers losing their jobs forever as they will be forced out of the game, by a Hard Cap that promotes inexpensive and entry level contracts to fit under a cap . This is also combined with your thoughts that it would take the removal of Goodenow to get this sweetheart deal for the players .. :shakehead

    You or I as Union head could not possibly negotiate a worse deal then that for the Union. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2005
  14. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,194
    Likes Received:
    815
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    Hang on here....WHAT conflict?

    I thought Daly told us all this was baseless pro-union rhetoric?

    :dunno:
     
  15. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    He did, what's your point?
     
  16. DW3

    DW3 Registered User

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    That's even assuming it made to the 350+ players for a vote. The last few proposals never did, even though it was speculated by many (like Barry Melrose and Darren Pang, just name a few) that the players would have voted in favor of it. What this whole mess has basically boiled down to is 12 people from each side making all the decisions for the rest. I wonder how long the lockout would have continued if both sides were able to get a full vote on the proposals?
     
  17. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    The NHLPA can vote if they wish. All they need is 50% plus 1 to force a vote. They do not need a super majority like the owners to hold a vote and pass a deal.

    Brett Hull is one of the more outspoken players and here is his take on things:

    http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=122913
     
  18. mytor4*

    mytor4* Guest

    hull is so full of crap he stinks. it wasn't that long ago he said players were overpaid including himself.now he turns the other cheek. he's useless.for those players that this yr might have been their last paycheck to bad for them. they made the choice. and don't give me this bull that the owners lock them out so it wasn't there choice. the knew a cap was comming. they should have taken the 42.5 but they we're to greedy. not the owners fault its the players.
     
  19. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    For the last time, the NHL doesn't need a super majority for 2 simple reasons:

    #1 If Bettman recomends the deal, he only needs 50% + 1 (or 16 votes)

    #2 The Board of Governors only needs 50% + 1 (or 16 votes) to fire Gary Bettman. If 16 teams wanted what the players last offered, we would have a deal.
     
  20. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    All it cost Alfie was 5 M dollars. Think he'll go for another 5 M?

    Silent discontent does not equal solidarity.

    Bettman has one voice amoung a group of very powerful men. They may respect his intelligence and opinion enough to give extra weight to his opinion, but ultimately it is their money and they will not let him persue a path they are not comfortable with as a group.

    Goodenow, on the other hand, leads a group of relatively poorly educated followers, who have had most of the major decisions and problems handled for them by others their entire life. The other group (agents) that could balance things off by giving the players a stronger voice is effectively nuetered by the fact that Bob controls their ability to make a living.

    To pretend that the two leaders have similar levels of power over their clients is laughable.

    The list of owners "who made big money under the old CBA" is to short to be of consequence. The owners have other places they can put their money if the NHL continues to be shut down, most of which would offer a better return on their investment. The players have no other comparable options to ply their trade.


    Domi let us in on one scenario where Linden was satisfied with a framework that Goodenow squashed. How many other times did this happen? It certainly looks like some players (agents?) attempted an end around after the season was cancelled and it would have worked until Goodenow regained control.

    I firmly believe that if Bob was eliminated from this equation the chances of getting a deal would rise significantly and it appears that more than one insider on the PA side feels the same way.

    Unless I'm mistaken, you yourself have stated that this won't be over until one side caves and the other acheives "victory". I see that as the most likely outcome as well. Bob may have tried to prepare the troops for a two year battle, but I don't see his support lasting that long. When they toss him aside the deal will get done quickly and mainly on the owners terms.
     
  21. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,527
    Likes Received:
    952
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Alfredsson Salarys' for 2004/05 as per nhlpa.com ..

    http://www.nhlpa.com/WebStats/PlayerBiography.asp?ID=49



    Salary .. $ 5,430, 660 . 00


    Less : 24 % rollback ( - $ 1,303,358.00)
    Balance .. $ 4, 127,301.00


    Less: Income tax - Payroll deduction @ 40% - ( - 1,650,920.00 )
    Balance .. $ 2, 476,380.00


    Less : Frolunda SEL Salary or other Euro league *estimate* ( - $ 1,000,000.00 )
    Balance .. $ 1, 476,380.00


    Less : Union stipent - lockout pay @ 10,000/month - (Oct-May) = ( - $80,000.00)
    Balance .. $ 1, 396,380.00


    Alfredsson is passing up an additional $ 1.4 mil (the average wage in the new NHL by not returning to the NHL.. The excludes Union Dues and other deductions ..

    Consider:

    That Alfreddsson under the new CBA will not likely receive a $ 5 mil contract again.
    That the new CBA may honour the year of wages lost and he would still receive it.
    That he gets to play in his home country in front of friends and family.
    He won a SEL championship & is representing his country in World Championships



    Factor in that the Euro season is 40+ games and not 82 like the NHL
    So its $1 mil (net) to play 40 games in your home country.

    Or its $ 2.4 mil (net) to play 82 games in a foreign country.

    So is it really such a hardship for Alfredsson to sit out another year via the lockout?

    Think also of all the other NHLers that found work in Europe during the lockout nearly 1/2 the NHLPA members and most are not making $ 5.5 mil like Alfredsson and losing even less.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2005
  22. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Do you ever get tired of creating these total worthless fabrications?


    If Alfie is paying 40% tax, he needs a new accountant and investment manager.



    You really love pulling #'s out of your ass, don't you?

    Please provide a link that supports this salary claim.

    Alfie played 15 regular season games. Do you really want to stick to your laughable claim that he made 1 M last season?

    Please explain why you don't account for taxes in Sweden, one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, yet feel Alfie will pay full taxes in Canada???

    The rest of your "calculations" were too flawed to even bother commenting on.

    Alfie was passing up far more than 1.4 M per season and you know it. It wasn't the full contract amount of over 5 M per season, but was closer to that than the laughable 1.4 M you "calculated."

    Everyone, yourself included, knows that the salaries in Europe are a mere fraction of what the same players could make in the NHL. If the reality was different, the players would have been opting to exercise their right to play in Europe that HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THEM in big numbers over the past decade.

    Try and pretend otherwise, but the NHL paycheck dwarfs the money the players can make anywhere else and is the single biggest chip the owners need to offer.

    PS Couldn't help but notice you failed to address the rest of my post.​
     
    Last edited by moderator : May 4, 2005
  23. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,527
    Likes Received:
    952
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Average Hockey player Old CBA 1.8 Mil Average / year Salary

    Salary .. $ 1,800, 000 . 00

    Less : 24 % rollback ( - $ 432,000.00)
    Balance .. $ 1, 368,000.00


    Less: Income tax - Payroll deduction @ 40% - ( - 547,200.00 )
    Balance .. $ 820, 800.00 k
    Less : Union stipent - lockout pay @ 10,000/month - (Oct-May) = ( - $80,000.00)
    Balance .. $ 740, 800.00 *(net take home pay)
    (excluding other deductions like Union Dues and Other payroll taxes)
    So the Average Hockey player would need to find a job in Europe that will pay him about $ 750,000 US per season to break even by the lockout ..

    Again a Euro season is 1/2 the length of the NHL to boot ..

    Damn those greedy NHLers !!!!!!!!
     
  24. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Do you really expect anyone to take your numbers seriously?

    Why do you assume players will pay the maximum income tax in Canada/US but none in Europe?

    Please provide a list of all European contracts signed by PA members for more than your dubious $750,000 figure. (Be sure to eliminate those signed by AK Bars as they no longer are pushing for a championship to celebrate their 1,000 year anniversary and have only to look at the disastrous results of overpaying for NHL mercenaries to keep them from repeating this collosal mistake.)

    If Europe was a real option, the NHL would have caved a long time ago. The fact that their is no comparable paying league gives the NHL the ultimate hammer. Sorry if that fact bothers you, but posting ******** #'s won't change it one iota.
     
    Last edited by moderator : May 4, 2005
  25. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    146
    was this ever in doubt ? from the PA's first offer in September, the deal was already in favour of the owners.

    the owners are going to extract every pound of flesh that they can and then they are going to feed it to the players.

    dr
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"