PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Drury_Sakic, May 10, 2005.

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

    Drury_Sakic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Home Page:
    In thinking about the split replacement players made in the ownership groups...(and the fact that the NHL has made the last umptienth million offers).. its time for the PA to make an offer to the NHL that the moderates would kill Betman over if he refused..


    28% Rollback
    42.5 million Cap


    Would be the foundation

    If after 3 full seasons league revenue is below 700 million, the owners can disolve the CBA or accept a cap of 30 million and a floor of 20.

    If after 3 full seasons, league revenues are below 1.2 billion dollars, the cap drops to 34 million, the floor to 21.

    If after 3 full seasons, league revenues are above 2.0 billion dollars, the cap jumps to 45.5 million.

    If after 3 full seasons, league revenues are above 2.8 billion dollars, the cap jumps to 47.5 million.

    If after 3 full seasons, league revenues are above 3.2 billion, the PA has an option to disolve the CBA, or accept a cap of 53 million. If the PA disolves the CBA, the owners have the option of activating the old CBA or negotiating a new one.

    Floor at 25.5 million

    1.50 tax down to 39.5

    1.00 tax down to 32.5

    .50 tax down to 28 million

    No player can make more than 10 million in a season(bonus, regular pay)

    No team can have more than 3 players making 8.5 mill or more a season

    No team can have more than 6 players making more than 5.5 million a season

    Owners have the option to add a year to all contracts that expired last season(meaning all players that would be UFA this summer would not be if the owner desired)

    Entry level players cannot make more than 1.4 million a season.

    It does not grant linkage in a pure sense, but it is there., sort of...


    It is not ment to be an offer every owner will love... in fact.. some/many will hate it... but it would be an offer that would draw alot of interest... and be a great move by the PA IMO.. Owners from Toronto, Colorado, Detroit, NYR, and a few other markets would press hard to get a deal done..
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2005
  2. Ron C.

    Ron C. Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,736
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    Amherst, NY
    Home Page:
    The 42.5M ship has long since sailed. Realistic expectations for the NHLPA likely center on a 25M floor/ 35M cap with upward linkage when and if overall numbers return to 2003 levels.
     
  3. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    Looks good to me - where do I sign..?
     
  4. MLH

    MLH Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This exemplifies the problem with this whole process. Goodenow will never accept a $42.5 cap with a 28% rollback and a tax because he turned down a better offer in early March. Everyone besides Bob realized that it was the best framework he was ever going to get to work with. I don't think his ego will allow him to swallow that pill. A deal can't get done untill Goodenow gets fired.
     
  5. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    Any offer from the NHLPA that is based on the rollback is not a legitimate offer.
     
  6. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Why, because Gary says so? Read it again, it's based on a salary cap. If a rollback is so insignificant than why did the league accept it and put it in to all of their offers since? If you don't have a rollback, how do you expect to get high spending teams under a cap or anywhere near the cap?
     
  7. ceber

    ceber Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wyoming, MN
    Grandfather existing contracts.
     
  8. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    I go with Burkes view of this, this CBA should have a 'transition period' of a few years so that the bugs are all worked out (what is revenue?), all the Jagr/Yashins have been paid or close to finished, to get to the expected percentage of linkage, all the while promote the game like crazy.

    So a few years to lower overall salaries to 54% linkage I don't know (58-56-54), but if marketed well, and revenue climb, will hurt less since declining linkage can be offset with increased revenue.

    :dunno:
     
  9. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    It wasn't the best framework he was ever going to get, it was a cap with no floor, no known revenue sharing, and VERY owner friendly in just about every other aspect.

    The answer to how Goodenow accepts a deal that is worse is to make it look like it's better. A huge hint was the PA framework that was bouncing around a few weeks ago. The players are basing everything off of the $2.1 billion in revenues, and were looking at a $30-$50 million range. When you factor in a revenue dive the cap might end up being less than $40 million, but in effect BG can claim he got a $50 million salary cap, provided revenues return to "normal" some day.
     
  10. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,385
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    101
    how does a $50 million

    salary cap help the NHL?

    Competative balance isnt there, and neither is profits.
     
  11. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    17,214
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    I think that would have worked before the season was cancelled and basically the NHL offered a negotiable version of that up as well...to go with a tax system of some kind and switch to a cap if it wasn't working. The PA didn't want to negotiate that.(it wasn't quite the same thing as simple grandfathering but it could maybe have been negotiated to be that).

    I think the time for grandfathering in the deal passed when the season was cancelled.
     
  12. Drury_Sakic

    Drury_Sakic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Home Page:
    in all honesty, the NHL's offer was not "the best he could have gotten" or the best he might get..


    He could "get" a 37.5 million cap deal that is better than the 42.5...

    Its the same way the NHL could take a 45 million dollar offer now, and come out better than with a 37.5 million cap....

    There are alot of triggers and "smaller" issues that can come off as being more important when combined than a cap number..

    Which is the beauty of this offer...

    Goodenow can at the very least claim he broke even, if not "won" compaired to most of the NHL's offers... the NHL on the other hand, while not getting everything, get a big ticket deal... they get triggers to break to the system the want now(fair to boot). There are also measures to try to prevent teams from hoarding talent like they do know. Both sides get an "out" in situations that they would be abused in....

    I did not outline arbitration, qualifying offers, or UFA-RFA debate, but thats to confusing for me..

    if you don't believe that in 2-3 seasons the league will not be able to afford a 42.5 million cap, you are foolish... And if from some fluke, it looks like it cannot, it will be lowered.

    Its also designed to be countrable... meaning that the PA could give on an issue or two if the NHL offerd back with small changes...
     
  13. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    You're using Bettman Math, 30 x $50 million is too much. But for each team that spends $50 million, there will be a Florida that spends $30 million. Avg it out to about $40 mil a team = $1.2 billion, or 57% of $2.1 billion. Pretty damn close to what the owners want. The PA based that range on "normal" revenues of $2.1 billion, so it's lowered if revenues are lower.
     
  14. Drury_Sakic

    Drury_Sakic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Home Page:
    if the cap is around 30 million... almost every team will hit it..

    if the cap is around 40 million.. roughly half will hit it..

    if the cap is around 45-50 million, roughly a 1/4th will hit it...

    anything above 50 only a small few will go(5 or so)

    if you believe that it will be much off from that...

    well..

    :shakehead

    you have been watching too much Gary TV.
     
  15. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? The NHL seems to think its worthwhile. It seems to be included in any offer the NHL makes.
     
  16. shakes

    shakes Pep City

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,480
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Home Page:

    You still think this is about comptetive balance eh? You've been watching too much Gary TV. Lets put it this way, if the NHL and PA could work out some magical deal that let every team make money while letting the big market teams spend as much as they wanted, we would be watching playoff hockey right now.
     
  17. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,385
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    101
    You guys

    throw around numbers way too easily.

    Personally, there is no way that I could decide whats a fair deal and what isnt.

    A: All I know is that the owners are putting a very expencive asset in a precarious position. They wouldn't do that unless they had to(eg profits/stop the bleeding).

    B: Also, the majority dont think they can market their teams without competative balance(eg small minimum and maximum payroll range).

    The sticking point being B as players dont understand why rich teams cant spend on players and rich teams dont want to give their money to poor teams so that that poor teams can bid against them for talent.
     
  18. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    It isn't based on a salary cap. The salary cap is insufficient and the rollback is only included because of that fact.
     
  19. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Since when is a salary cap offer not based on a salary cap? And how is a $42.5 million salary cap insufficient, the owners even offered this not long ago? It's actually lower than the AVERAGE salary last year. Before you say revenues have gone down, maybe they have, but if they stay down that $42.5 million cap number would be adjusted to reflect the new revenues.

    What more do you want? Have you been taught that the only possible solution is a carved-in-stone 54% linkage Jacobs dream CBA?
     
  20. R0CKET

    R0CKET Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't hold your breath cuz Don Guido Goodenow aint gonna let any deal that does not include a horses head in Bettman's bed.

    This will be solved only when the Union has finally seen enough of their earning potential in the Billions fly out the wind to prompt them to send Don Goody out the window as well.

    That or the NHL gets these idiots on a RICO violation or something like that.
     
  21. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    The owners offered that salary cap to save the season and said it was off the table afterwards for a reason. If that number was something they're willing to accept still chances are the deal would be done.
     
  22. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That offer was a completely arbitrary hard cap.

    The offer in this thread is a cap linked to league revenues, you can't compare the two.

    If the PA is going to give in to linkage, the NHL needs to give back and allow the cap to be a little higher based on $2.1B revenues.
     
  23. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because a system with a hard floor at $30M and a hard cap at $50M would result in an average team salary somewhere around $40M-$42M....which is around 57%-59% of revenues, which is perfect.

    It's linked, so if revenues go down so does the cap and floor....again, perfect for the NHL.

    And, competative balance is fine. Even if teams spend the absolute lowest they can spend, they are still competative with a team spending only $20M more than them. Last year the cup winner was competing against teams spending twice that above them. If the average team is spending around $40M and most teams are spending $37M-$43M, even the poorest of teams are still cometative with that.

    $30M-$50M based on $2.1B in revenues is fine for the NHL as long as they share revenues.
     
  24. Sammy*

    Sammy* Guest

    Oh, this cant happen cause players said they would never ever sell out the young guys :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
     
  25. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,385
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    101
    oh I agree

    that is, if you believe that we had competative balance last year.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"