NHLPA Press conference called for 7:45pm ET

[codswallop]

The same reasons why you would blindly back the owners.

I still don't understand the logic in backing one side or the other so completely. It's not as if one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

Shades of grey. That black and white concept set sail many centuries ago.

 

[speeds]

How so? The players are PERFECTLY within their rights to ask for less salary to ensure the triggers aren't setoff.

Actually, I think this is an interesting situation, basically playing the players against eachother. Suddenly an outrageously high contract not only affects the owners, but affects the players as well...

theoretically 4 teams could just trade for enough high paid players (add salary via trades) to put them over 42 mil and thus trigger the cap, there's nothing the players could do to stop it. Unless, I suppose, they can prove collusion.

 

[Egil]

The Triggers in what the NHL proposed today are too low, too restrictive. The NHL proposed this deal not to get the players to accept it, but to get the players to negotiate off it (the same goes for the Dec. proposal from the PA, as well as the Profit Sharing proposal from the owners). The Owners will loosen the triggers, or have 1 trigger put in a stiffer luxury tax, 2 hit concurantly a hard cap put in at a high level, 3 hit put in linkage and 4 hit linkage + rollback (off loosened triggers of course).

The PA has put out SOOOO many hints about triggered caps etc. that they HAVE to negotiate off this, and this is where they wanted to get the owners too.

 

[Wetcoaster]

theoretically 4 teams could just trade for enough high paid players (add salary via trades) to put them over 42 mil and thus trigger the cap, there's nothing the players could do to stop it. Unless, I suppose, they can prove collusion.

Or three bottom teams can cut spending and shed salaries to trigger the 33% payroll differential trigger between the three top and three bottom teams.

And the bonus is they should likely finish at the bottom of the standings and get a better shot at Crosby.

So the teams can overspend their way into a tigger or underspend - it is a sucker bet. No wonder the NHLPA rejected it.

 

[Wetcoaster]

i agree with toonces if either of these 2 sides had half a brain they wouldn't be here. the Nfl Cba expires in 2 years and they have been working on a new one for a year now already. why? b/c they know a lockout or strike the this one he nhl is in would kill the leagues crediblity! But once again the Nhl who wants to run with the big leagues behaves like a bunch of children fighting over the last cookie!

The NFL and NFLPA are working on the deal now because the salary cap expires a year before their CBA and the NFLPA has the right to veto extending it as Gene Upshaw has already threatened to do unless there are some significant modifications and the shared revenue pool is increased.

 

[codswallop]

Or three bottom teams can cut spending and shed salaries to trigger the 33% payroll differential trigger between the three top and three bottom teams.

And the bonus is they should likely finish at the bottom of the standings and get a better shot at Crosby.

So the teams can overspend their way into a tigger or underspend - it is a sucker bet. No wonder the NHLPA rejected it.

It's just a different way of getting to where the owners want, I think that was pretty obvious to begin with. I'm not surprised it was rejected.

That said, it could well be a starting point (better than what's been brought up in the past). And it's also a no-brainer that the PA would negotiate off of it, if they accepted the framework. That's kinda the point.

They would be morons to accept it or decline it as is. If the union honestly believes that their previous proposal could work, then they could work at making those triggers less restrictive (along with a few other items that need tending to in negotiations) and see where this goes. If the two sides agree to the new parameters (whatever they may be), the league wouldn't care one way or the other if the newly negotiated triggers were hit. They would get their reduction in costs regardless.

It gives both the NHL and the PA and out, when they really need it. It wouldn't be a perfect compromise for either side, but that's not gonna happen regardless. Three months, six months, a year from now; the situation will be worse for both parties if they haven't agreed to a deal.

Now, I don't really believe that is going to happen. I'd like to think it will, but I'm not holding my breath. But if one or both sides are that steadfast in what they want, this will continue to drag on. And it will get worse before it gets better.

All I want out of this is a healthy NHL (or an NHL that is on its way to getting healthy). Don't give a crap how it comes about. Of course, mine is pretty much a pipe dream. If the league shuts down for a year or two, it's possible that it could eventually crawl its way back to a healthy status. But it would be quite a bit better off to avoid that. So settling for something close to the middle right now would be the better option, in my opinion. What I'd like to see, what I believe would work the best for all parties just isn't gonna happen when you have two sides warring against each other. Best to be realistic, see both sides, and get to a middle ground as soon as possible.

 

[AM]

ahhh

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.

the players said their system would control salaries.

Obviously they dont believe it.

 

[Wetcoaster]

the players said their system would control salaries.

Obviously they dont believe it.

There will be no way to tell because the triggers will kick in before there is any chance to see the system work.

That was the point being made by Bob McKenzie and Brian Burke on TSN. Burke said no triggers and try it for three years.

 

[Steve L*]

Goodenow wants no part of looking out for the business, it's not his problem. His
job is to make money as possible for his players.

The irony is that if he succedes, his clients will have to take huge paycuts because there wont be an NHL in a few years time.

 

[Steve L*]

There will be no way to tell because the triggers will kick in before there is any chance to see the system work.

They knew it wouldnt work because they didnt even attempt to negociate the triggers.

They knew individual players are too greedy to accept a reasonable salary and would try for as much as possible. The players would break their own proposal if it was tried.

They rejected their own proposal outright and didnt even attempt to prove it would work to any degree.

 

[Ar-too]

Well then, the players are going to eventually have to compromise.

There. I said it.

It won't happen on the timeframe of many fans, nor does it make the NHLPA "stupid," but compromise is, indeed, a two-way street.

More liberal trigger points, it would seem, are a logical "common ground" here.

What is this "common ground" you speak of? I always thought one side had to be completely right and the other completely wrong...

 

[Russian Fan]

The NHPA said their proposal was foolproof. In this offer Betman is saying if your proposal is foolproof why don’t we try it out and see if it works. When the NHPA says foolproof they mean that spending will be restricted with the weak tax and the other small adjustments. Now the triggers that Betman put out were two tight. But those are negotiable. The triggers are there to judge whether the proposal works or not. Betman says if it does not work we will go on my proposal.

I'm sorry if you don't see it but it's like having 2 deal with each other about a loan. I'll give you 10000$ if your expense to pay everything you have is less than 500$ & if you can't do that, I'm gonna control the way you spend & tell what to do. The thing is that your expense are already over 600$. So it's like saying I give a you chance to let you do what you want when I already know that you won't be able to do so because I gave you a condition that makes me certain that you will fail !

 

[Schlep Rock]

There were two drafts of the press conference "speech"...

1. What we heard... 2. "We accept the NHL's proposal"

Linden and Goodenow played rocks, papers, scissors before the p.c. and Linden wanted #2 but he picked scissors and Goodenow threw down a rock.

 

[Russian Fan]

They knew it wouldnt work because they didnt even attempt to negociate the triggers.

They knew individual players are too greedy to accept a reasonable salary and would try for as much as possible. The players would break their own proposal if it was tried.

They rejected their own proposal outright and didnt even attempt to prove it would work to any degree.

Triggers can't be negociate & it's not complicated to know why ? by even putting less restrictive triggers, you give all the power to the owners/gms to sink the proposal to satisfy their egos.

Even if the triggers where

3 teams over 50M$
50% between the bottom 3 & top 3
etc......

The owners can VOLUNTARILY activate a trigger just to get to their own proposal.

It's not a way to negotiate.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Are there even two sides negotiating?

I am of course not privy to what goes on behind the scenes but since the first week of December it seems that the only side negotiating, and by that I mean offering proposals, is the NHL. Have the players done anything but said 'no' to the owners as far as formal proposals go since December 9th?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Triggers can't be negociate & it's not complicated to know why ? by even putting less restrictive triggers, you give all the power to the owners/gms to sink the proposal to satisfy their egos.

Even if the triggers where

3 teams over 50M$
50% between the bottom 3 & top 3
etc......

The owners can VOLUNTARILY activate a trigger just to get to their own proposal.

It's not a way to negotiate.

I will ask again, in what way have the players negotiated in over 2 months other than saying no?

 

[Russian Fan]

I will ask again, in what way have the players negotiated in over 2 months other than saying no?

I understand your point but you need to remember 1 big thing : It's the owner's lockout plain & simple.

OWNERS it whatever multiple false proposals they did , it's all the same thing COST CERTAINTY with MULTIPLE CAPS in it.

PLAYERS are not into PR move. They could have multiples ways to get a rollback at 24 or 25% or 26% (Wow that would be a great new proposal to go from 24 to 26) but the owners who say NO , it's not cost certainty.

After every proposals by the owners, you got a conference to tell the fans how great they try to get things done when it fact it's all the same disguise from their 1st proposals.

 

[Russian Fan]

Are there even two sides negotiating?

This is a legitimate question & the answer is no. No one wants to compromise from their own positions.

The players are stubborn but the owners are stubborn too.

The owners want everything in the next CBA & while the players are not budging , I can understand them. Why would I make another proposal when I know the owners will take the best of it & put their same cost certainty in it so that the ''FANS'' again will think how brilliant Bettman is.

 

[shnagle]

I will ask again, in what way have the players negotiated in over 2 months other than saying no?

When either side actually brings something "new" to the table I will give them credit for negotiating. Until I see that happen both sides deserve each other and neither warrants support.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I understand your point but you need to remember 1 big thing : It's the owner's lockout plain & simple.

OWNERS it whatever multiple false proposals they did , it's all the same thing COST CERTAINTY with MULTIPLE CAPS in it.

PLAYERS are not into PR move. They could have multiples ways to get a rollback at 24 or 25% or 26% (Wow that would be a great new proposal to go from 24 to 26) but the owners who say NO , it's not cost certainty.

After every proposals by the owners, you got a conference to tell the fans how great they try to get things done when it fact it's all the same disguise from their 1st proposals.

I will disagree on whether the Owner's have indeed moved other than cosmetically over the past two plus months, but let us put the owners and that issue aside for a moment. Focus on the players. How has what they have been doing been 'negotiating'? Can you defend it?

Edit: You already answered and do not defend the players . . . I will grant you that though I do believe that the owners have moved and compromised, just not on the central issue of cost certainty. The players have not even done that much.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Btw, an article in Slam that outlines the Owner's proposal and which calls it significant movement which calls the players out on their own words, ie, that the luxury tax would control spending. The article further says that some tinkering could have been had with the triggers, had the players not rejected it outright, but it paints the proposal as significant movement:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/10/926473.html

 

[shnagle]

Btw, an article in Slam that outlines the Owner's proposal and which calls it significant movement which calls the players out on their own words, ie, that the luxury tax would control spending. The article further says that some tinkering could have been had with the triggers, had the players not rejected it outright, but it paints the proposal as significant movement:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/10/926473.html

I read the article, and sure there is a deal to be made assuming that the triggers can be negotiated. That is a pretty big assumption IMO as neither side has shown a willingness to negotiate off their stance. If you are trying to make the point that the owners are negotiating and the players are not I will respectfully have to disagree. As I stated earlier it's only becomes a negotiation when somebody brings something "new to the table. I do agree that after the lates proposal the ball is clearly in the players court with regards to a counter-proposal.

 

[NJD Jester]

I read the article, and sure there is a deal to be made assuming that the triggers can be negotiated.

I'm a pro-ownership guy in this lockout, but I think the NHL's latest offer is a joke.

First of all, two years? TWO YEARS? The general manager of the worst team in the NHL gets more than two years to turn a franchise around. If the NHL was seriously going to make an effort to see if the luxury tax does or does not work, it should commit to a four-year case study, and then have the cap if it fails. That would be a good-faith proposal; if they can't commit to that, then just stick to the hard cap deal. Don't waste our time with a pathetic attempt at compromise.

Furthermore, the 3 team/$42 million payroll trigger...The SLAM article suggested that figure could be extended to five teams...Whoopie! It doesn't change the fact that all the NHL needs to institute a hard cap is for the Rangers, Flyers, Avs, Leafs and Red Wings to continue doing what they've been doing for the last 20 years.