NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.

mooseOAK*

Guest
hawker14 said:
the league has also admitted using similar software available to all GM's/teams. this is nothing new. it works for both sides. it's not like player salaries are a secret.
I have never heard of that, how would it help them to force agents and the NHLPA to lower the salary demands of their members anyway?
 

Quantas

Registered User
Feb 4, 2004
843
0
Ottawa
If anyone's interested, there's some more info on Sportsnet.

Some key points that come out of this are:

1. The NHLPA has a three-day meeting planned next week with the players' executive committee, sessions originally scheduled before Thursday's offers by the league

2. The league's new offer Thursday also included, for the first time, a floor of $22.5 million per team, according to a source.

3. The $37.5-million cap figure could also be moved upward depending on the growth of league revenues, a source indicated.

4. This is the last time, it would appear, that the union will ever see an offer without linkage.

5. And again, the offer works off the union's Dec. 9 component of a 24 per cent salary rollback on all existing player contracts.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050317_140153_5372
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
kolanos said:
Wow, what a rational person you are! :shakehead

Lets say the NHL does reach $3bn revenues in 1-3 years, 55% linkage gives the players a $55M cap. A $17.5MM difference from the current hard cap on the table -- yet the players favor a hard cap?

Further proof that the players' delusional paranoia is not only hurting themselves, but everyone else along with it.

what you fail to mention is in that scenario, is that the gains in revenues will still come from the "high revenue teams". why is revenue sharing a bad thing for a healthy 30 team league ?
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
hawker14 said:
what you fail to mention is in that scenario, is that the gains in revenues will still come from the "high revenue teams". why is revenue sharing a bad thing for a healthy 30 team league ?

What healthy league would that be?
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Timmy said:
The league everyone watches on TV?

yeah, the one where revenue sharing allows each team the possibility of contending for the championship every year.
 

kolanos

Registered User
Nov 7, 2003
1,515
0
hawker14 said:
what you fail to mention is in that scenario, is that the gains in revenues will still come from the "high revenue teams". why is revenue sharing a bad thing for a healthy 30 team league ?
First, it wasn't my scenario, it was gc2005's scenario.

Second, linkage essentially IS revenue sharing.

Third, it's the PA that sees revenue sharing (or linkage) as a bad thing. They don't want revenue sharing when NHL revenues are down. It's amazing these players can tie their own skates, they don't seem to be able to see far beyond their own noses.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
hawker14 said:
yeah, the one where revenue sharing allows each team the possibility of contending for the championship every year.
The salary cap has nothing to do with it?
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
hawker14 said:
i question the validity of the owners declaring an impasse now, and the nlrb upholding it, as it appears that they are now offering less then they previously offered.

it would seem to me that any corporation negotiating in such a manner is bad faith. i'm by no means well versed in this area, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

it'll be interesting if the " take this now, or it'll only get worse in the future type negotiating" is upheld by the nlrb if it gets that far.

Here is some information on regressive bargaining. The NHL could say that their circumstances have changed with the cancelation of this past season, so they can no longer offer as much as they did in previous offers...


In the past, the Board has held that regressive bargaining is permitted only if supported by a change in circumstances, such as the weathering of a strike, or in the most pro-employer cases, the union failure to take a strike vote. The decisions reached in these two cases are more favorable to management, but relying on them involves an element of risk because they represent the views of only one current Board member and also because they seem to be inconsistent with a long line of prior Board decisions.

http://www.kzrd.com/html/4q98a.html

However, the Board generally finds regressive proposals to be lawful where they are preceded by good-faith bargaining, relate to an intervening change in the employer's circumstances (such as the successful weathering of a strike) or otherwise have a logical justification.[46] For example, in Challenge-Cook Bros.,[47] the Board held that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(5) when it altered its bargaining position after the beginning of a strike. Specifically, the employer withdrew its retroactive pay and pension proposals and, for the first time, announced its desire to eliminate the union security clause in the contract. The Board found this to be a "reasonable reaction" to the strike, noting that there was no evidence that the employer asserted its proposal disingenuously or that it was unwilling to discuss it with the union. Id. at 388-389.

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/admemo/admemo/z040998_rotorex.asp
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
kolanos said:
First, it wasn't my scenario, it was gc2005's scenario.

Second, linkage essentially IS revenue sharing.

Third, it's the PA that sees revenue sharing (or linkage) as a bad thing. They don't want revenue sharing when NHL revenues are down. It's amazing these players can tie their own skates, they don't seem to be able to see far beyond their own noses.

no revenue sharing is all teams having $ 70 million in revenues to spend as they see fit (based on $2.1 billion league wide)

the PA, nor any fan of the league doesn't see revenue sharing as anything but healthy for the league.

the PA has a problem with certain teams earning profits of $30-60 million/year under a salary cap while certain teams struggle with a $ 20 million player payroll.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
Quantas said:
If anyone's interested, there's some more info on Sportsnet.

Some key points that come out of this are:

1. The NHLPA has a three-day meeting planned next week with the players' executive committee, sessions originally scheduled before Thursday's offers by the league

2. The league's new offer Thursday also included, for the first time, a floor of $22.5 million per team, according to a source.

3. The $37.5-million cap figure could also be moved upward depending on the growth of league revenues, a source indicated.

4. This is the last time, it would appear, that the union will ever see an offer without linkage.

5. And again, the offer works off the union's Dec. 9 component of a 24 per cent salary rollback on all existing player contracts.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050317_140153_5372

There are a lot of key pain points for the union that the NHL has addressed with this latest proposal - most notably the introduction of a salary floor and upward linkage.

Of course I am sure there are some more dirty details wrapped underneath these high level statements and the league still needs to address the dreaded revenue sharing.

Since both sides seem to have agreed on a framework (cap without linkage) and have now put a salary floor and upward linkage on the table the only other major pain point is revenue sharing. If both sides can close the gap on revenue sharing then there just might be something here to negotiate off of.

I'm not getting my hopes up what-so-ever but I actually see a smigen of progress today. Guess we'll wait and see what the NHLPA comes back with.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
mooseOAK said:
The salary cap has nothing to do with it?

with revenue sharing and a salary cap, the league will only thrive. i've never said anything different.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
The Messenger said:
Yes we all know this .. this event will happen in the future .. neither side can go to the courts at the moment .. Not sure what you are talking about !!!!!!!..

There is no need for the NHLPA to fight anything until that NHL has declared an impasse at which time it will insert its own CBA .. until that time we are in negotiations only .. this is pretty obvious ..

We are talking about the Next step of the NHL .. not the current one ..

IF the NHL wants to go with replacement players and wants NHLers to cross then IMPASSE and IMPLEMENTAION are the next steps if it feels it CAN NOT work out a deal with the PA ..

Actually, there was a thread not too long ago that showed that employers could bring in temps without declaring impasse...
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
djhn579 said:
Here is some information on regressive bargaining. The NHL could say that their circumstances have changed with the cancelation of this past season, so they can no longer offer as much as they did in previous offers...


In the past, the Board has held that regressive bargaining is permitted only if supported by a change in circumstances, such as the weathering of a strike, or in the most pro-employer cases, the union failure to take a strike vote. The decisions reached in these two cases are more favorable to management, but relying on them involves an element of risk because they represent the views of only one current Board member and also because they seem to be inconsistent with a long line of prior Board decisions.

http://www.kzrd.com/html/4q98a.html

However, the Board generally finds regressive proposals to be lawful where they are preceded by good-faith bargaining, relate to an intervening change in the employer's circumstances (such as the successful weathering of a strike) or otherwise have a logical justification.[46] For example, in Challenge-Cook Bros.,[47] the Board held that the employer did not violate Section 8(a)(5) when it altered its bargaining position after the beginning of a strike. Specifically, the employer withdrew its retroactive pay and pension proposals and, for the first time, announced its desire to eliminate the union security clause in the contract. The Board found this to be a "reasonable reaction" to the strike, noting that there was no evidence that the employer asserted its proposal disingenuously or that it was unwilling to discuss it with the union. Id. at 388-389.

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/admemo/admemo/z040998_rotorex.asp

yep, the league needs to have to have a very good argument why bettman hinted at $ 45 million during his season cancellation press conference. the meetings in new york with gretzky and lemieux will have a major impact on how the nlrb ultimately rules, as to what transpired.

the owners are responsible for any drop in revenues, just as the union is, in this dispute, but the case can be made that the NHL hasn't suffered as there has been no loss in market share as they hold basically a monopoly in their cities.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
Salary floor, EVERY god damn linkage proposal made by the NHL had a Salary floor, and EVERY time Glen Healy got on TSN and said the players don't give a flying **** about a salary floor. The Owners, when they went off linkage, got rid of the floor, and now the players wanted it. WTF is going on?

Also, I believe Baseball actualy lost at the NLRB due to a change they made to arbitration, and not the Salary Cap. I also think that due to the NLRB basically being a lottery, that the NHL will eventually decide to NOT use replacement players. I seriously think that if Nov 2005 rolls around, and the NHL just continues the lockout that the players will completely cave. And when they get less than $42.5 Mil cap, we will all simply point and laugh.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
hawker14 said:
yep, the league needs to have to have a very good argument why bettman hinted at $ 45 million during his season cancellation press conference. the meetings in new york with gretzky and lemieux will have a major impact on how the nlrb ultimately rules, as to what transpired.

the owners are responsible for any drop in revenues, just as the union is, in this dispute, but the case can be made that the NHL hasn't suffered as there has been no loss in market share as they hold basically a monopoly in their cities.

First, Bettman never hinted the league would have taken $45, only that they would have considered it. Second, the failed Gretzky meeting clearly broke down on MANY issues (of which each side HAD laid out their position in the various offers), and NEVER got to the number. So I don't think either side would lose points for that.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
hawker14 said:
yep, the league needs to have to have a very good argument why bettman hinted at $ 45 million during his season cancellation press conference. the meetings in new york with gretzky and lemieux will have a major impact on how the nlrb ultimately rules, as to what transpired.

the owners are responsible for any drop in revenues, just as the union is, in this dispute, but the case can be made that the NHL hasn't suffered as there has been no loss in market share as they hold basically a monopoly in their cities.

Why would the NLRB look at that meeting and hold the NHL responsible for the union not offering a $45M hard cap, considering that the NHL was told by some players that the NHLPA might make that offer if the NHL reached out to them?

The NHL has not suffered? Is there a guarantee that fans will come back at the same level as before the lockout? Is their any guarantee that sponsors will offer the same amount of money as they did before the lockout? We already know that the TV deal will not be as good...

Please note that in one of those links I posted, it stated:

A party's withdrawal of its agreement on an issue and substitution of a regressive proposal is often considered an indicium of bad faith, but not a per se violation.[42] Regressive bargaining must be examined in the context of the parties' negotiations. In considering a party's justification for a change in proposals, the Board has held that although the reasons need not be totally persuasive, they must not be "so illogical as to warrant an inference that by reverting to these proposals [the party] has evinced an intent not to reach agreement and to produce a stalemate in order to frustrate bargaining."[43]

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/admemo/admemo/z040998_rotorex.asp

This is probably the key part of the above paragragph: "reasons need not be totally persuasive". The NHL does not have to prove that they suffered losses due to the lockout. It is highly likely that they will suffer losses and that should be enough to satisfy the board...
 

kolanos

Registered User
Nov 7, 2003
1,515
0
ColoradoHockeyFan said:
Ok, what I said was linkage is essentially revenue sharing -- obviously there are other factors involved, but they all relate to linkage.

Ok, with a 55% linkage cap, the players will argue that smaller market teams will spend far less than 55% because they can. Which is why you would set a mininum, which should also be linked to revenues. Something like a 33% floor, and a 55% ceiling. The NHL wants linkage, and they've said they are open to setting a floor to the cap as long as it isn't something completely one-sided.

The further arguement is that the smaller market teams will then only spend up to the floor figure set by linkage (in this example, 33%). That may be true, but it is a losing battle for the players to demand that the NHL teams do extensive revenue sharing among themselves or set arbitrary figures in what they must share (last one I heard around the season cancellation was $9M).

Furthermore, that will not even solve the problem.

The problem as it currently stands is that smaller market teams cannot compete with the big markets because the bar is set way out of their means ($30M vs. $90M). With linkage, the bar is set to a figure equaling the average revenues for all NHL teams. So while the Maple Leafs will still make a lot of money, the amount they can spend on players will be restricted to the NHL average and the small markets will be able to ice competitive teams, and inturn, better their financial position.

Does this mean that it will eliminate all underproductive teams completely? Probably not (and don't bet on that ever happening), but at the very least it improves the outlook for those small markets that do want to compete, which increases the revenues for the league overall, which increases the linked cap (and, just as importantly, the linked minimum).

Any excuse that an owner may have to ice a shoddy product before the lockout (ie. we can't compete with the big markets) will now be thrown out the window, resulting in more pressure from the fanbase to get their act together. Resorting to arbitrary amounts that owners must share only subsidizes these owners that have no interest in running a successful franchise.

So I argue, if the players could see the big picture (for a change), they'd see that even though the owners like linkage -- it doesn't necessarily mean that they like it because it allows them to screw the PA over (more of that delusional paranoia). If the PA abandons this one-way sliding linkage stance, and instead goes for a linked floor/minimum stance they would be better off in the long run. But I am not convinced that the PA has any interest int he "long run", so it all may be for not.

Edit: A 33% floor is a bit low, admittedly. But that should be the point of contention for the NHLPA. A 45% floor and a 55% ceiling is probably more realistic.
 
Last edited:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
djhn579 said:
Actually, there was a thread not too long ago that showed that employers could bring in temps without declaring impasse...

Yes, but in that situation, no current player (or recent past player who is an NHLPA member) could be used as a replacement - the lockout would still be in force - as opposed to a strike situation that would exist post-impasse. That's why the league was looking at the risky tactic of a selective lockout - dropping the lockout only for players with a salary less than some threshold - a move of questionable legality.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
Why would the NLRB look at that meeting and hold the NHL responsible for the union not offering a $45M hard cap, considering that the NHL was told by some players that the NHLPA might make that offer if the NHL reached out to them?

really ? the nhl had talks with players without their union representatives present ?

three words ... bad faith bargaining

further, do you not think the owners $ 37.5 million salary cap offer doesn't frustrate negotiations ?
 

txomisc

Registered User
Mar 18, 2002
8,348
62
California
Visit site
hawker14 said:
really ? the nhl had talks with players without their union representatives present ?

three words ... bad faith bargaining

further, do you not think the owners $ 37.5 million salary cap offer doesn't frustrate negotiations ?
Seems like what really frustrated negotiations was having to cancel the damn season.
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
txomisc said:
Seems like what really frustrated negotiations was having to cancel the damn season.

well, only for about 1/3 of the league. the middle third can compete but want concessions from the union, and the bottom 1/3 need the rich teams to share revenue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->