NHL offers two more salary cap proposals

[Hawker14]

Are you disputing this? When everything you post hints of sarcasm you really become incoherent.


Before I have to reiterate what I've already covered in this thread, how about you start by pointing out what you feel is invalid in my response to your "Huh?" post. Then we can start from there. OK?

actually, i have no desire to debate you any further since it's obvious you have nothing to offer.

you've presented nothing of substance in any of your posts. if you do present a substantive and cognitive argument in a thread down the road that makes sense, i'll definitely post my encouragement that you had a rational thought.

in the interim, i wish you well in your baiting of intelligent logic that defeats the lowest common denominator which defines some of the outspoken pro-owners and pro-players here.

 

[Hawker14]

PROOF?

Do you have any proof that a member of management talking to a player or vice versa is negotiating in bad faith? A link to a legal case where this was the judgement would be great! You say this as so matter of fact, I would think you could produce the proof very quickly...

google "labor law".

my experience in contract negotiations lends me the ability to feel safe with allowing certain posters to explain to me how things are.

 

[djhn579]

google "labor law".

my experience in contract negotiations lends me the ability to feel safe with allowing certain posters to explain to me how things are.

I see...


You can't prove it...

 

[NewBreed19]

google "labor law".

my experience in contract negotiations lends me the ability to feel safe with allowing certain posters to explain to me how things are.

You sound like the ultimate poster child for Glenn Heally and the NHLPA! You should apply for a job on the bargaining committy. All the the smarts that you have would be well suited to helping Bob&the players get their heads out of their a$$es, and realize that they will lose this war.

 

[kolanos]

actually, i have no desire to debate you any further since it's obvious you have nothing to offer.

you've presented nothing of substance in any of your posts. if you do present a substantive and cognitive argument in a thread down the road that makes sense, i'll definitely post my encouragement that you had a rational thought.

in the interim, i wish you well in your baiting of intelligent logic that defeats the lowest common denominator which defines some of the outspoken pro-owners and pro-players here.

Translation: I can't hold up my side of a debate.

Thanks for revealing yourself to all, nothing more than a petty troll.

 

[Hawker14]

You sound like the ultimate poster child for Glenn Heally and the NHLPA! You should apply for a job on the bargaining committy. All the the smarts that you have would be well suited to helping Bob&the players get their heads out of their a$$es, and realize that they will lose this war.

i'm quite content that my education and experience lend me the ability to be a fairly astute hockey fan in responding to posts about the business of hockey.

i don't pretend to know more than any other poster. i try to back up any opinion i may have. i find it hard, however, to comprehend the support the nhl owners receive on this board, while the players are made out to be the culprits responsible for all that is wrong with the nhl.

 

[Hawker14]

Translation: I can't hold up my side of a debate.

Thanks for revealing yourself to all, nothing more than a petty troll.

i should've been more clear. i'll gladly respond to any relevant post that you can make, other then generalizations and opinions used to support weak arguments.

 

[kolanos]

i'm quite content that my education and experience lend me the ability to be a fairly astute hockey fan in responding to posts about the business of hockey.

i don't pretend to know more than any other poster. i try to back up any opinion i may have. i find it hard, however, to comprehend the support the nhl owners receive on this board, while the players are made out to be the culprits responsible for all that is wrong with the nhl.

I would argue that you resort to strawman tactics, then when someone holds your feet to the fire you either insult them or tell them to "Google it". As far as any substantive debate is concerned, you bring nothing to the table and are only capable of insulting other people's views.

 

[kolanos]

i should've been more clear. i'll gladly respond to any relevant post that you can make, other then generalizations and opinions used to support weak arguments.

Yeah, speaking of generalizations, you won't even respond to my direct responses to your braindead posts ("Huh?") -- instead you write them off as "weak arguements." Ha! It really is laughable. You know what pal? You're a waste of everyone's time.

Oh, and don't worry, I wouldn't recommend you start pretending to know anything...but its way too late for that.

 

[djhn579]

i'm quite content that my education and experience lend me the ability to be a fairly astute hockey fan in responding to posts about the business of hockey.

i don't pretend to know more than any other poster. i try to back up any opinion i may have. i find it hard, however, to comprehend the support the nhl owners receive on this board, while the players are made out to be the culprits responsible for all that is wrong with the nhl.

Please back up the quote below. You made the claim, you prove it...

if there is any factual evidence of the nhl speaking/negotiating with any members of the nhlpa other than the nhlpa negotiating committee, then that is bad faith negotiating. the nhlpa is a legally certified union, and the nhl negotiating with anyone other than their negotiating committee is bad faith.

 

[signalIInoise]

Making all teams 'competitive' on the ice does not necessarily equate to making all teams financially successful. Hell, there's already competitive parity in the league, or there wouldn't be 2-1 games half the time -- I think that what would sell better than parity would be exciting hockey. A dull, defensive .500 club won't sell out any arenas in areas where there isn't already solid fan support. Even a strong team doesn't necessarily sell out -- haven't I read several times that the Devils play to inordinately small crowds?

I agree somewhat with Kolanos on revenue sharing, to the extent that, if revenues were equally shared, there would be little impetus for any team to succeed financially any more than its peers. This is effectively the same reason that the Boston-based buyout (can't remember the names of the companies bidding) scared me -- homogeny is not good. However, as far as I know, the equal revenue sharing concept is a straw man -- I don't think even the PA is suggesting that level of sharing.

OTOH, unless the PA is given some sort of say in how the NHL runs itself and markets itself, then linkage is effectively a suicide pact the PA makes with the league. Considering how poorly the owners have run their league, the players accepting linkage is akin to asking the town drunk to be your designated driver. Linkage, if it comes, has got to come with *true* partnership with the PA, and I don't see that being offered.

 

[kolanos]

Making all teams 'competitive' on the ice does not necessarily equate to making all teams financially successful. Hell, there's already competitive parity in the league, or there wouldn't be 2-1 games half the time -- I think that what would sell better than parity would be exciting hockey. A dull, defensive .500 club won't sell out any arenas in areas where there isn't already solid fan support. Even a strong team doesn't necessarily sell out -- haven't I read several times that the Devils play to inordinately small crowds?

I agree somewhat with Kolanos on revenue sharing, to the extent that, if revenues were equally shared, there would be little impetus for any team to succeed financially any more than its peers. This is effectively the same reason that the Boston-based buyout (can't remember the names of the companies bidding) scared me -- homogeny is not good. However, as far as I know, the equal revenue sharing concept is a straw man -- I don't think even the PA is suggesting that level of sharing.

OTOH, unless the PA is given some sort of say in how the NHL runs itself and markets itself, then linkage is effectively a suicide pact the PA makes with the league. Considering how poorly the owners have run their league, the players accepting linkage is akin to asking the town drunk to be your designated driver. Linkage, if it comes, has got to come with *true* partnership with the PA, and I don't see that being offered.

^Hey hawker, this is how it is done. Look at the arguements made, and develop a concise and coherent rebuttal to one side or the other (or both). It really isn't that hard, I assure you.

 

[kolanos]

Making all teams 'competitive' on the ice does not necessarily equate to making all teams financially successful. Hell, there's already competitive parity in the league, or there wouldn't be 2-1 games half the time -- I think that what would sell better than parity would be exciting hockey. A dull, defensive .500 club won't sell out any arenas in areas where there isn't already solid fan support. Even a strong team doesn't necessarily sell out -- haven't I read several times that the Devils play to inordinately small crowds?

I agree somewhat with Kolanos on revenue sharing, to the extent that, if revenues were equally shared, there would be little impetus for any team to succeed financially any more than its peers. This is effectively the same reason that the Boston-based buyout (can't remember the names of the companies bidding) scared me -- homogeny is not good. However, as far as I know, the equal revenue sharing concept is a straw man -- I don't think even the PA is suggesting that level of sharing.

OTOH, unless the PA is given some sort of say in how the NHL runs itself and markets itself, then linkage is effectively a suicide pact the PA makes with the league. Considering how poorly the owners have run their league, the players accepting linkage is akin to asking the town drunk to be your designated driver. Linkage, if it comes, has got to come with *true* partnership with the PA, and I don't see that being offered.

I conceded earlier that there would likely still be underproductive teams even with a linkage system I described -- I don't think there is a workaround to that problem, atleast nothing short of forcing indifferent owners out. As for the 2-1 games you mentioned, I would argue that teams have resorted to the defensive systems because of the skill disparity among the teams. You really started to see it in the early 90s when the elite teams started snapping up all the skilled free agents and you saw teams like the Panthers in '96 find some real success in a defensive system. There weren't any skill players left once the Red Wings and the Rangers of the league had finished signing free agents -- so a defensive system became necessary, and eventually, the norm.

I agree that a competitive team doesn't guarantee a strong attendance -- I didn't suggest that it would, but it certainly won't hurt attendance.

As for the suicide pact, I've heard many times over in the last year that the league wants to establish a true partnership with the PA. It's the PA that won't let go of this independent contractor model that they've become accustomed. I don't think the league would have any serious resignations as far as giving the PA a seat at the table if it meant a solvent CBA was in place. But to date, the PA has shown zero interest in such a model.

 

[signalIInoise]

^Hey hawker, this is how it is done. Look at the arguements made, and develop a concise and coherent rebuttal to one side or the other (or both). It really isn't that hard, I assure you.

Hey now, Kolanos... I don't mind being part of a reasoned discussion, but please don't pull me into the *****fest between the two of you that has gotten wayyyy too personal for my tastes.

You both make decent enough points when you're not trying to skewer each other with them. Sound like any NHLs and NHLPAs we all know?

 

[kolanos]

Hey now, Kolanos... I don't mind being part of a reasoned discussion, but please don't pull me into the *****fest between the two of you that has gotten wayyyy too personal for my tastes.

You both make decent enough points when you're not trying to skewer each other with them. Sound like any NHLs and NHLPAs we all know?

I apologize, I wasn't trying to pull you into this, I simply wanted to point out what a well-reasoned, non-inflammatory response looks like.

If the horse *is* dead, then it should speak up and tell me to stop beating it!

 

[signalIInoise]

There weren't any skill players left once the Red Wings and the Rangers of the league had finished signing free agents -- so a defensive system became necessary, and eventually, the norm.

And this would explain the utter dominance of the Rangers and Wings of the last decade?

I agree that a competitive team doesn't guarantee a strong attendance -- I didn't suggest that it would, but it certainly won't hurt attendance.

It doesn't even *suggest* a strong attendance. Didn't the Lightning effectively give playoff tickets away last year? Nothing guarantees strong attendance, but for my money the best bet is to fix the game itself. A real, honest-to-Bob crackdown on obstruction is the first step. Reversing the old decision not to aggressively market the games stars is another (if I recall correctly, this was a Bettman carryover from the NBA, where he'd felt that the stars were overshadowing the game -- sheer nonsense from where I sit).

As for the suicide pact, I've heard many times over in the last year that the league wants to establish a true partnership with the PA. It's the PA that won't let go of this independent contractor model that they've become accustomed. I don't think the league would have any serious resignations as far as giving the PA a seat at the table if it meant a solvent CBA was in place. But to date, the PA has shown zero interest in such a model.

I am suspicious of this in the extreme. Every indication I've seen is that the NHL wants to change the independant contractor model into a serf model. Capping earnings, clamping down on entry-level contracts, the very nature of restricted free agency -- these don't imply much partnership. Their inability to control their own checkbooks shows, if anything, that they can't be trusted to partner with anyone. I haven't seen them offer to cap their own profits.

If they really want partnership, and they really want to control costs, I say make UFA a given directly after the entry-level contract. The rise in supply of available, young, talented free agents would cause costs to plummet, and the players would be able to have some sense of self-determination before they are leaving the prime years of their careers.

 

[signalIInoise]

I apologize, I wasn't trying to pull you into this, I simply wanted to point out what a well-reasoned, non-inflammatory response looks like.

If the horse *is* dead, then it should speak up and tell me to stop beating it!

No need to apologize -- I know how emotional these things can be.

FWIW (and I hate to quelch a good flamewar when its participants are enjoying themselves), you do both make decent arguments, and it's been an entertaining read -- so much moreso than all the rar-rar-owners-suck blah-blah-stinky-greedy-players claptrap I've read way too much of these last few months.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

if there is any factual evidence of the nhl speaking/negotiating with any members of the nhlpa other than the nhlpa negotiating committee, then that is bad faith negotiating. the nhlpa is a legally certified union, and the nhl negotiating with anyone other than their negotiating committee is bad faith.

Not quite. Employers are free to communicate with and provide information to employees during a strike/lockout situation. But it is indeed a tightrope scenario fraught with possible pitfalls, not the least of which involves possible intimidation/coercion.

We've yet to hear of any fallout concerning the league's "window" gambit. I would imagine the details would be kept under close wraps until an appropriate time (i.e. NLRB hearing).

 

[PecaFan]

Nope. What I'm saying is what you call 'requirements' weren't actually requirements.

Ah yes, the old "the NHL has been shut down a year simply for laughs" theory.

It couldn't possibly be the straight forward reasonable explanation that the owners are losing money, and won't play again until they won't.

Oh no, they don't "require" to stop losing money, that's not important at all.

 

[kolanos]

And this would explain the utter dominance of the Rangers and Wings of the last decade?

Not necessarily, but it would explain the lack of big-name skill players throughout the league. But for the record, the Red Wings have been pretty dominating in the last 10 years, and the Rangers cup run was helped a great deal by FA acquisitions and up until the late 90s were a very strong team. Just look at how the Colorado Avalanche evolved, when they first relocated from Quebec they iced a very defensive team (Ricci, Yelle, Keane, C. Lemieux, Leschysyn, Foote, etc.) and with FA acquisitions (and trading some of their big name vets) became more and more skill-oriented. The Avs really personify the movement of the top six or so teams gobbling up the skill players on the open market towards the mid-to-late 90s.

It doesn't even *suggest* a strong attendance. Didn't the Lightning effectively give playoff tickets away last year? Nothing guarantees strong attendance, but for my money the best bet is to fix the game itself. A real, honest-to-Bob crackdown on obstruction is the first step. Reversing the old decision not to aggressively market the games stars is another (if I recall correctly, this was a Bettman carryover from the NBA, where he'd felt that the stars were overshadowing the game -- sheer nonsense from where I sit).

I agree completely about the game needing to be fixed. But that's a whole seperate issue. What was I arguing was a linkage system can help the game overall, but there's obvious limits to what a CBA can do.

I am suspicious of this in the extreme. Every indication I've seen is that the NHL wants to change the independant contractor model into a serf model. Capping earnings, clamping down on entry-level contracts, the very nature of restricted free agency -- these don't imply much partnership. Their inability to control their own checkbooks shows, if anything, that they can't be trusted to partner with anyone. I haven't seen them offer to cap their own profits.

If the PA appeared the least bit interested in the NHL's attempts to dangle a true partnership model out there, I am pretty sure the NHL would have put a legitimate partnership CBA proposal on the table by now. But with the PA's posture of not wanting to have anything to do with a partnership model, the league is forced to setup a CBA that keeps the independent contractor model in check.

It doesn't make much sense for the NHL to invite the PA into their house and then beat them over the head once they're inside. But the PA wont accept the NHL's invitation, instead the PA prefers to break-in and take what they feel is theirs -- and up until now, the NHL has been an accomplice. Now we're seeing the NHL forced to install some security systems in their house because the players are walking away with too much.

Not a great analogy, but you get the idea.

If they really want partnership, and they really want to control costs, I say make UFA a given directly after the entry-level contract. The rise in supply of available, young, talented free agents would cause costs to plummet, and the players would be able to have some sense of self-determination before they are leaving the prime years of their careers.

I don't know about the entry-level contract being the UFA cut-off point, but lowering the UFA age is definately something both sides should agree on as long as there is some sort of a cap.

If you make the UFA age the expiry of the entry-level contract -- you're going to see some real long entry-level contracts.

 

[Anksun]

I have not read all the posts and my comments could look "out of context" in the lattest pages but i just want to add this about the new offer of 37.5M.

Somes here (in previous pages) have said this new offer could be seen as "negociating in bad faith". This is wrong.

With the cancellation of the season, the risk of a salary cap without linkage is now up by factor-10. What was once a 42.5M offer is now a 37,5M offer and really, this will easily be proven a better offer in contexts in front of any financial expert the court would like to listen... easily. And i dont even have taken into account the new minimal cap of this offer yet.

I hope they wont have to go this way, but looking at this new offer as negociation in bad faith is loosing time.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

It doesn't even *suggest* a strong attendance. Didn't the Lightning effectively give playoff tickets away last year?

Nope.

For each game there were a whopping 200 tickets which were sold for $8. (To get those folks camped out for up to 3 days outside the arena.) It's something the team has done since the early days to allow the less financially fortunate fans to have a chance to see a hockey game, and the team has pledged to continue to make those tickets available. Other than that, if you wanted into the building you had to pay and pay dearly.

 

[Lobstertainment]

I encourage you to take your own advice. The triggers were negotiable because the league said so, okay, I'm convinced! So what, maybe they bargain over triggers for 3 months and Gary is willing to remove one of them, so now we're only down to three triggers, some of which are triggered instantly.

Again the triggers were for the 05/06 season not the current one, no triggers would have been immediate.

as for pro-owner/pro-player I couldn't care less about either side, I'm pro-hockey.


Wrong. The NHLPA refused to guarantee their own offer would work exactly like the league's offer, which it was never designed to do in the first place.

Wrong. The triggers were negotiable, the PA could have come back with revamped triggers to guarentee their numbers.

They declined to do so because they knew full well that they could not guarentee to 100% certinty that their proposal would work, and I can't blame them for that no one knows how any implemented CBA is going to pan out over the years.

however the base deal was still their deal and they could have altered the triggers to be more favourable to them.

Like it or not they rejected their own proposal.

.

 

[Lobstertainment]

Please back up the quote below. You made the claim, you prove it...

Owned.

 

[Steve L*]

i don't pretend to know more than any other poster. i try to back up any opinion i may have. i find it hard, however, to comprehend the support the nhl owners receive on this board, while the players are made out to be the culprits responsible for all that is wrong with the nhl.

Its quite simple, if the owners get what they want, the NHL prospers.
If the players get what they want, we will lose 4-8 NHL teams and the league goes pear shaped.

It shouldnt take a genius to work out who to pull for.