barnburner said:Goodenow's refusal to try his own proposal sure sets up an interesting scenerio for impasse.
Ziggy Stardust said:So Goodenow has basically admitted that he has made no significant offer that should be taken seriously and has not made an attempt to get both sides negotiating on a fair partnership between the players and the owners. Thank you for clarifying that.
Wetcoaster said:"You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
rwilson99 said:Yay!
We got spirit! yes we do! We got spirit! How bout you!
Dueling press conferences... where is Zell Miller when you need him.
Wetcoaster said:The NHL claimned the new collective bargaining agreement would begin with the union's Dec. 9 proposal - which featured a luxury tax - then evolve into the league proposal of Feb. 2 - based on a salary cap - if it was deemed that the union's model no longer worked. It is up to the onwers soleley to determine if it "worked" and they have control
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
Wetcoaster said:The NHL claimned the new collective bargaining agreement would begin with the union's Dec. 9 proposal - which featured a luxury tax - then evolve into the league proposal of Feb. 2 - based on a salary cap - if it was deemed that the union's model no longer worked. It is up to the onwers soleley to determine if it "worked" and they have control
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
Wetcoaster said:The NHL claimned the new collective bargaining agreement would begin with the union's Dec. 9 proposal - which featured a luxury tax - then evolve into the league proposal of Feb. 2 - based on a salary cap - if it was deemed that the union's model no longer worked. It is up to the onwers soleley to determine if it "worked" and they have control
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
WHARF1940 said:second, what happened to the 8:30 PC? Is it going to be covered anywhere?
Freezerburn said:Word. I am a pro-owner person but this proposal was pure fluff. I wouldn't have accepted it if I were the PA.
That being said I think the framework of going with the PA's proposal and then switching to the league's if triggers are met is an excellent idea, and probably the best to date. The issue lies in the triggers that the league set up. Its odd that they say "if these are met" when in fact some of them have already been met. There is room to improve upon the triggers thats for sure.
chiavsfan said:Workable or not, are they supposed to go back to the table as was rumored tonight?
Wetcoaster said:The NHL claimned the new collective bargaining agreement would begin with the union's Dec. 9 proposal - which featured a luxury tax - then evolve into the league proposal of Feb. 2 - based on a salary cap - if it was deemed that the union's model no longer worked. It is up to the onwers soleley to determine if it "worked" and they have control
Four so-called triggers would decide when the model would switch:
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues in salaries.
- If any three teams have a of payroll more than $42 million US
- If average payroll of the three highest-spending teams is more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three lowest spending teams.
- If average team compensation exceeds $36.5 million US.
I don't remember the NHLPA's proposal having a link between salaries and revenue.
This is the NHL repackaging its "triple salary cap proposal", only wording it differently. "You can have no salary cap, as long as teams don't spend over what the salary cap would have been".
The first two triggers have already been reached and the fourth trigger only requires three teams to NOT spend. Great proposal.
And the gullible are taken in yet again.
Bettman said they were invited to talk tonight and said yes.Leafer4Life said:Yeah, I'm wondering about that too.........
Egil said:The NHL's proposal wasn't "fluff". It certainly wasn't designed to be accepted by the PA, but it is designed to be negotiated off of. That was the point of the NHL proposal, to negotiate a proposal using the Player ideas, that the PA would guarantee in some way, shape or form, nominally by a trigger to a true linkage proposal. The NHL needs to move its numbers around, AS does the PA, but the FRAMEWORK for a deal is here, in front of us.
Freezerburn said:There is supposed to be a presser? I wasn't even aware...
neelynugs said:public perception will be that goodenow rejected his own proposal. the fact is, a majority of people who follow hockey will wind up in the owners' corner when all is said and done
PepNCheese said:Yeah, well, the public is pretty damn stupid.