NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

[Mess]

Can the courts force the league to operate under conditions where they lose money while doing it?

The NLRB ruled in the last Baseball strike and forced the parties back to the bargaining table and re-instated the previous CBA for Baseball .. No reason to believe that the same result is not possible again ..

 

[chiavsfan]

Take the critisism all you want...I am not a 100% owner shill, I really feel for the lower paid players, the ones who are actually hurt by this lockout. But to say the NHL is negotiating in bad faith because they lowered their salary cap after a season of not playing is ludacris.

The NHLPA has rejected every single proposal out of hand, and has still come up with only one real proposal. Their cap give in was a bluff, and the NHL called them on it...blowing the PA's wait and see tactic. They dont have that luxury anymore, and the NHL dosen't have the income. It's only common sence that they would go lower

 

[SENSible1*]

Why would they lower the percentage too?

New opening offer.

They'll go to 55-57% if the PA agrees to linkage.

They'd probably agree on a fixed cap for two year prior to linkage beginning to let revenues stabilize if the PA was smart enough to offer something that creative.

 

[Hawker14]

The NHL made it clear thast 42.5 was a stretch. And that Bettman went there to try and get a deal done to save the season.

If anyone is going to be accused of negotiating in bad faith, look at the NHLPA.

-Rejecting its own proposal.
-Sitting back and letting one side negotiate with itself.

the pa has made several concessions in the negotiations. the nhl has already clawed back winnings in just about every area. i don't know how this can be disputed.

from my understanding, based mainly from listening to a former chairman of the nlrb, regressive negotiating is bad faith. if the nhl had stayed at $ 37.5 million throughout the negotiations, or even the original $ 31 million, without moving, then they would have a much better chance of having an impasse declaration upheld then they do now, by going back from their $ 42.5 million offer

 

[chiavsfan]

No one has ever cancelled an entire season before, which I am guessing would be taken into consideration

 

[Hawker14]

Take the critisism all you want...I am not a 100% owner shill, I really feel for the lower paid players, the ones who are actually hurt by this lockout. But to say the NHL is negotiating in bad faith because they lowered their salary cap after a season of not playing is ludacris.

The NHLPA has rejected every single proposal out of hand, and has still come up with only one real proposal. Their cap give in was a bluff, and the NHL called them on it...blowing the PA's wait and see tactic. They dont have that luxury anymore, and the NHL dosen't have the income. It's only common sence that they would go lower

i'm not disputing what you're saying. however, sometimes the law and common sense don't measure up the same, and the law's version of good faith bargaining isn't necessarily the same as common sense.

this is why i believe the nlrb will lend little credence to projected lack of revenues as making regressive bargaining acceptable.

what i'm saying is that i believe the nhl has hurt it's case, more than helped it's case, by moving back from it's $ 42.5 million offer

 

[Drury_Sakic]

People are looking at 37.5 million as a big step back..

But we won't know about that untill we see what COUNTS under the cap...

If IR players are given some sort of exemption status...

If there is room for some form of playoff bonus clause..

If buyouts are not counted 100% against the cap...


The deal for 37.5 will be roughly as good as the 42.5 deal as teams will have more flexablity in certain situations.....

Another ticker will be if the NHL put any possible chance for the 37.5 million to increase(even if it is just 500k a year)...

Looking at the raw numbers are not the only thing that matter according to the NHLPA(as that is why they rejected the leagues Sat. 42.5 offer that was still on the table and stated that it was not the cap number, but the small things they wanted to talk about)
:lol



Seriously though, if some of the smaller conditions are better under a 37.5 million than a 42.5 million cap, it might not be as big of a loss, even moreso since only 4-6 teams IMO would have spent up to the 42.5 anyways...

 

[SuperUnknown]

Just to clarify, the impasse would go before the NLRB, not the court system.

Forcing them to play under the old CBA would be a court issue, not a NLRB issue (at least to my knowledge).

A court (or NLRB or whatever else) can't force a business to operate. They can reinstitute the past CBA until a new CBA is agreed upon, but they can't force the NHL to open up again and start production (play games). After the court hearing (or NLRB) reinstituting the old CBA, the NHL could declare a lockout once again.

 

[Hire Sather]

Screw them all. I'm sick of each side rejecting everthing.

 

[Whakahere]

the pa has made several concessions in the negotiations. the nhl has already clawed back winnings in just about every area. i don't know how this can be disputed.

from my understanding, based mainly from listening to a former chairman of the nlrb, regressive negotiating is bad faith. if the nhl had stayed at $ 37.5 million throughout the negotiations, or even the original $ 31 million, without moving, then they would have a much better chance of having an impasse declaration upheld then they do now, by going back from their $ 42.5 million offer

please tell me what concessions the players have made now? 24% roll back? ahaha that is only a few players now ... nothing ... what other concessions .. a 52 million hard cap with upward linkage? ahaha The players have offered nothing (owners aren't doing much better I might add but they have increased the amount of income the players can have)

 

[Mess]

People are looking at 37.5 million as a big step back..

But we won't know about that untill we see what COUNTS under the cap...

If IR players are given some sort of exemption status...

If there is room for some form of playoff bonus clause..

If buyouts are not counted 100% against the cap...


The deal for 37.5 will be roughly as good as the 42.5 deal as teams will have more flexablity in certain situations.....

Another ticker will be if the NHL put any possible chance for the 37.5 million to increase(even if it is just 500k a year)...

Looking at the raw numbers are not the only thing that matter according to the NHLPA(as that is why they rejected the leagues Sat. 42.5 offer that was still on the table and stated that it was not the cap number, but the small things they wanted to talk about)
:lol



Seriously though, if some of the smaller conditions are better under a 37.5 million than a 42.5 million cap, it might not be as big of a loss, even moreso since only 4-6 teams IMO would have spent up to the 42.5 anyways...

I was just going to type something similar the 42.5 and 37.5 are just one small issue of a CBA .. all the other systemic issues and Revenue Sharing play a part ..

The 42.5 mil offer had not minimum Salary .. If this proposal has a 37.5 Mil Hard cap ceiling but has a 30 mil min then this 37.5 is better offer for the NHLPA then the 42.5 mil would be as now Pittsburgh can't have a 18 mil Salary and at needs to spend 30 mil and create jobs for UFA under this proposal ..

 

[Scoogs]

i'm not disputing what you're saying. however, sometimes the law and common sense don't measure up the same, and the law's version of good faith bargaining isn't necessarily the same as common sense.

this is why i believe the nlrb will lend little credence to projected lack of revenues as making regressive bargaining acceptable.

what i'm saying is that i believe the nhl has hurt it's case, more than helped it's case, by moving back from it's $ 42.5 million offer

Look...

Im the NHL. My revenue is $2. To keep my business running, it costs $1. The NHLPA was receiving $1.20 of my $2. My business is dying. We offer the NHLPA what we can afford. They reject. We offer a bit more than we can afford (42.5). They reject.

Our business is now worth $1.50. Why would we offer more than we can afford once more? Or even go higher?

This is NOT negotiating in bad faith.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The NLRB ruled in the last Baseball strike and forced the parties back to the bargaining table and re-instated the previous CBA for Baseball .. No reason to believe that the same result is not possible again ..

That was because baseball implemented a salary cap before an impasse was declared, that has not happened in hockey yet.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Of course they can... the arguement the NHLPA would have to provide is: the owners created their red ink. If they can prove it, of course the courts can!

The owners can point to the current CBA and the fact that they are not able without the risk of collusion charges to effectively control their own costs.

 

[Scoogs]

And also the fact that the NHLPA has made it publicly clear that it understands that the last CBA had problems.

 

[Sammy*]

Why would they lower the percentage too?

Cause they have lost more $$$ since the season was cancelled & as well, the linkage as I understand it is based on revenues, (which will go down) , not profits, while their fixed expenses are not affected..

 

[xtra]

What is all this talk about the PA rejecting its own proposal?

can someone explain it to me.

 

[Mess]

Look...

Im the NHL. My revenue is $2. To keep my business running, it costs $1. The NHLPA was receiving $1.20 of my $2. My business is dying. We offer the NHLPA what we can afford. They reject. We offer a bit more than we can afford (42.5). They reject.

Our business is now worth $1.50. Why would we offer more than we can afford once more? Or even go higher?

This is NOT negotiating in bad faith.

A Salary Cap in the NFL tripled the Franchise values of the Owners .. If you have a 100 Mil team and a Hard Cap Salary system makes the new value 200 or 300 mil as a result ... What is the better advantage to the Team .. the 1 or 2 mil lost extra running a team day to day or the 100 Mil that the team just increased in value ..

Like all courts case you have to have proof of declining revenues in order to prove your case ESPN bluff failed and they renewed their TV deal .. What proof (actual facts) could the NHL have to prove lower revenue until it opens it doors and the fans decided to show up or stay away .. Burden of Proof required clearly would favour the NHLPA in a Court ruling and the NHL does not have ACTUAL evidence to support its opinion of what Revenue will be .. Even if it drops as all work stoppages have consequences ..

How can anyone predict the future and know that it will not drop for a few years, stabilize and then return to its current amount .. If the NHL locks the hard Cap figure and wants the Courts to rule on a 37.5 Mil Hard cap for this CBA then how would they prove that is not Bad Faith if the long term goal is to grow the game and increase revenue .. ??

 

[kdb209]

the pa has made several concessions in the negotiations. the nhl has already clawed back winnings in just about every area. i don't know how this can be disputed.

from my understanding, based mainly from listening to a former chairman of the nlrb, regressive negotiating is bad faith. if the nhl had stayed at $ 37.5 million throughout the negotiations, or even the original $ 31 million, without moving, then they would have a much better chance of having an impasse declaration upheld then they do now, by going back from their $ 42.5 million offer

If you would have waded through all the long boring impasse theads here, you would have seen direct NLRB cites which say that retrograde negotiations are not on their face bad faith if they can be justified by changing economic conditions (and no one, not even BG would claim that there has not been significant economic damage due to the cancelled season). Other cites showed that the NLRB has allowed offers of the form: Offer A is un the table until this date, after that the offer drops to Offer B.

 

[Sammy*]

The NLRB ruled in the last Baseball strike and forced the parties back to the bargaining table and re-instated the previous CBA for Baseball .. No reason to believe that the same result is not possible again ..

Was baseball as a whole losing hundreds of millions?. I do not believe the NLRB would force an industry to commot economic suicide.

 

[X8oD]

What is all this talk about the PA rejecting its own proposal?

can someone explain it to me.

the NHLPA's first offer was made back in November. They touted it as a major step for the league, and guarenteed it would fix the league.... the offer was hollow. The rollback only would be applied once, causing the league to be back to the situation they were at in 1-2 years.

the NHL, before the season was cancelled, called the NHLPA's bluff. They proposed that they would Accept their offer, if the NHLPA woudl guarentee it woudl work. the NHL had 3 trigger points that would be triggered if the Deal did not work. And if they were triggered, the CBA would revert to thier offer.

The NHLPA, basically put in a position to guarentee thier own offer, declined. Essentially refusing to accept thier own terms and figures of their own deal, because even they couldnt guarentee it would work.

the trigger points became a point of interested on these forums. PA supporters say they were awful and not negotiable, League supporters then turned to multiple interviews given by the league which said that the triggers were negotiable, making it look even worse.

in the end, the NHLPA looked bad because they refused to accept thier own offer.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I really hope this was just the first in a series of proposals by both sides beause $37.5 or 54% will not be accepted by the PA.

 

[Mess]

That was because baseball implemented a salary cap before an impasse was declared, that has not happened in hockey yet.

That is not correct .. The NHL could declare IMPASSE and the rules state that the last bargained on CBA is inserted and regardless of if its the 42.5 or 37.5 hard cap figure both are a Hard Cap ..

The NHLPA now files a case to claim Unfair Bargaining and Bad Faith at which time the NLRB would rule ..

The NHL and MLB are Identical .. in the rules of impasse and Implementation .. and both sports attempted to implement a Hard Cap .. The key is whether the NLRB rules "BAD FAITH" negotiating and in order to do that it looks at the full process and if the teams have reached impasse and goes over all proposals with a fine tooth comb .. not just the 42.5 Hard cap figure but also Arbitration and Entry Contracts and the rules if the NHL proposal was in good faith ..

 

[Asiaoil]

I really hope this was just the first in a series of proposals by both sides beause $37.5 or 54% will not be accepted by the PA.

Then they will be looking for work in Murmansk again.......

If find the following scenario particularly funny - the owners declare impasse and invite a hoard of non-NHLPA Euros to play in the NHL next year. I can hear the NHLPA whine about scabs and then being reminded about how they floated off to Europe to put Euro players out of a job this season - the payback would be sweet baby.

 

[Mess]

Was baseball as a whole losing hundreds of millions?. I do not believe the NLRB would force an industry to commot economic suicide.

They (NLRB) ruled the the CBA that Baseball put in place during impasse was not done based on Good Faith bargaining and too restrictive in its content with is Hard Cap System.. It ruled it invalid and re-installed the old CBA .. but ordered the teams back to the bargaining table .. The NHL could again take the lockout stance and not lose money ,and continue to bargain .. In baseball the League did not get its hard cap but agreed with the PA on a luxuary Soft cap system ..

For a good read on all the Salary caps in Pro sports of the big 4 see the link ..

http://stats.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/spring1998art1.pdf