No Hard Cap

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by SPARTAKUS*, Dec 11, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    I am certain that the NHL won't propose a hard cap in their counter-proposal here's why? By offering a 24% rollback on their salaries the players have demonstrate that they are willing to nogociate in good faith. The NHL on the other hand have not in my opinion shown the same willingness to nogociate in good faith until now. If they come back tuesday with a hard cap knowing full well in advance that it will be rejected, how can they say they are negociating in good faith? Why do you think the NHLPA luxury tax is only 20% because it's something that is negociable. Do you really think the owners want to give back the 24% rollbacks? Absoluteny not! Bettman said that the rollback was essential to be able to implement a new system and that new system will be a stiffer luxury tax.
     
  2. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,932
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    obviouslly they low balled at 24... they don't wanna offer 50 then have the owners come back at 75
     
  3. coyotechrisz

    coyotechrisz Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Thinking of that too.. makes me feel a little optimistic...
     
  4. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    I am not talking about the rollback. IMO the rollback is non negociable. I was talking about the 20% luxury tax I think that's somethiung that the NHLPA is willing to nogociate.
     
  5. HckyFght*

    HckyFght* Guest

    The NHL wants a salary reduction from the current average salary of $1.8 mil to $1.3. That's 38%. The union has offered a 24% reduction. I think that puts them solidly at the bargaining table and an impasse out of reach unless the follow-up details get stuck in the mud. But the devil will be in the details. Can they craft an agreement regarding arbitration, bonuses, a luxury tax, etc. that will garuntee as much as a cap would, that salaries won't be right where they are now in 2-5 years? From here on out that shouldn't be impossible. I think the NHL should up the ante just a tad and ask for a 28-30% reduction and a buy-out clause for garunteed contracts.

    Phase two now needs to be initiated and that is the on-ice product needs a roll-back as well! Does anyone know what happened at Shannahan's round-table on in-game rules changes?

    If I was a player in Europe, I would start packing my bags...now, where is my old moth-balled Dale Hunter jersey?
    -HckyFght!
     
  6. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Absotlutely, there's a deal to be made here. I think that both side have to the realization tha cancelling the entire season would be catastrophic!!!
     
  7. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    You're forgetting one thing...a rollback is one-time cut in salaries, it's not a SYSTEM which prevents salaries from escalating!

    20% luxury tax is a joke and PA knows it.
     
  8. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    Yes it is a joke but I am sure that the NHLPA and the NHL will negociate a higher rate. No problem
     
  9. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    negotiate, not nogociate.
     
  10. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    merci mousieur le professeur!!!! :dunno:
     
  11. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Union in my mind offered the 24% one time rollback, simply because as Brian Burke said, to keep the same system they have right now. Take the hit at the beginning, and have the same market like system in a year or two. The Union knows they have it way too good right now, hence the big roll back, which caught every one off-guard; now everyone believes that the Union is willing to bargain in good faith. Whereas I see it completely differently. They want to keep the system they have right now, and they're willing to do anything to do it.
     
  12. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    I don't care about why the two side are willing to compromise. Just make a deal that BOTH side can live with. The only thing that needs to be adjusted in the NHLPA proposal is the luxury tax? What they should do is tax every club that as a payroll over $40 millions. Let say a team as a $60 millions payroll you take 60% of that payroll ($36M) add a 25% tax, that club as to pay a $9 millions. So in reality it has a payroll of $69M.
     
  13. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know for a fact, the NHL doesn't want any salaries anywhere near 60 million dollars. That right there is the biggest problem. You hear cost certainty been thrown around constantly by Gary Bettman, it won't change until he gets what he wants. I'm just hoping he does it the right way and doesn't go into Tuesday with a cap proposal, if he does, the NHLPA will walk out and there will be no season.
     
  14. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    It's Bettman's job right now to come up with a economic system that will give the players their free market and at the same time will prevent the big markets to spend like crazy. There's got to be a way for god sake!!! to agree on something that both side are happy with.
     
  15. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,699
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Canada
    theres gonna be a cap come hell or high water .

    the owners are tired of the tail wagging the dog

    its their toy box
     
  16. OlTimeHockey

    OlTimeHockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    16,483
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Occupation:
    stick figure porn
    Location:
    home
    You might want to check your math before posting.

    (Just a suggestion)
     
  17. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    How are they going to accomplish that without the players approval?????
     
  18. Kid Canada

    Kid Canada Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only way I see this finishing is if the NHLPA believes the proposal (whenever that is) is a luxery tax, and the NHL believes it's a cap. That's the only way it's going to get resolved. I have a very hard time believing that the NHLPA is going to give in fully to a hard cap at around 40 million. The only way that is happening is if there's actually a God and he provides us with a miracle.
     
  19. xander

    xander Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Section A Lynah Rink
    Home Page:
    people keep saying that the NHLPA made considerable consesions, but all they did is alter the numbers within the frame work of a luxer tax proposal, which was the framework they've been pushing for all along. The league could come back with an offer of a 40 million doller hard cap and a 24% salary increase and it would essentially be making the same concesions that the players did.

    for the record, I'm not pro-owner or pro player. I don't want a hard cap, and I'd like to see the owners come back with a proposal of either a soft cap or a high luxery tax (100%) and work within the parameters of this deal.

    The main issue in this stand off is ideology, not numbers, the NHLPA improved they're numbers, but they didn't change they're ideology, which is what everyone seems to be asking the owners to do.
     
  20. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,699
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Canada
    It wont be pretty
     
  21. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,699
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Canada
    good post .
    I agree that something could be done to make the players proposal work .However , the luxury tax penalties that the nhl would want would be laughed at by the nhlpa because they will say ''its so stiff ,it may as well be a cap''

    we have to hope that middle ground can be found on the luxury tax rates , otherwise forget it
     
  22. Trottier

    Trottier Very Random

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    29,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Marketing Executive
    Location:
    San Diego
    Home Page:
    Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have! :speechles

    One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.

    (And don't come back with "they make a lot more money than us, so they should be willing to...ya-da, ya-da." Its all relative. Just because Mats Sundin earns a lot more than Joe Fan does not mean he should have to give up his basic free-market earning power.)

    Regardless of whether one favors a strict luxury tax (I do) or a hardcap ( :shakehead ), workers should always have the right to earn to their potential. Whether they are making $10 an hour or $25,000 a game.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2004
  23. xander

    xander Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Section A Lynah Rink
    Home Page:
    if your employer needs to cap your earning potential to ensure the saftey of your job then it's in your best interest to do that, especially if your already making an extradonary amout of money.

    Now i'm not sure if the NHL does need to cap earning power to ensure job security, but flatly refusing to do so when it might meen the differance between keeping or loosing your job then your shooting yourself in the foot by not doing so.
     
  24. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    53,952
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I think there is WAY too much wishful thinking going in this thread. The NHL has said they need it fixed right. they need cost certainty and are willing to wait a season or two for it. the PA makes a proposal that is based on a one time salary give back and you are convinced that the league will cave in.

    that 24% savings is misdirection. it wont last. sergei gonchar's contract runs out after this season. is there anyone here that believes that gonchar as a ufa will get $3.75m or less?? there is no chance of that happening.

    the 24% applies to currently signed contracts. new contracts are another story and IMO you will see continued growth in prices of players with those new contracts.
     
  25. Jussi

    Jussi Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    63,383
    Likes Received:
    1,412
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The List Of Jericho
    Well John Madden already did, apparently because he thinks the NHL will start in January. He left IFK Helsinki today when they still had one more game before the Christmas break.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"