Players angry with proposal....

[txpd]

Darcy Tucker has already fired off in the media about his shock at the 24% rollback in salary. The interesting thing is that there are only a handful of players that get hurt by that proposal. only a handful but those players get hurt badly. any player with a long term contract gets killed by that proposal. Jagr with 4 years left at $11m gets crushed. Olie Kolzig with 3 years at $6.5m gets hurt. several free agents signed 4 year contracts this off season. they get hurt.

Kolzig loses $4.7m over the three years. Gonchar loses his entire arbitration award, but he is on a one year contract and as a UFA will more than make up those loses as he would become one of the leagues highest paid players.

any nhl player that is unsigned as of today or in the last year of his contract doesnt get hurt much by the 24% rollback. players with multi year contracts are hung out to dry and cant be very happy

Click to read more...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Players would clearly be willing to take the paycut instead of sucumbing to the owners ridiculous Hard Cap.

You dont think that salaries would go even lower if they agreed to a bogus revenue-cost % number that the NHL wants?

Theres a meaning behind the fact that the owners dont want to share revenues, they dont want to help out other owners. The only way around that is to institute a hard cap that would guarantee that every team be profitable, no matter how poorly they run their busienss. Thats the point. the nhl wants to guarantee profits to all owners no matter the circumstances.

The players say: no thanks. Get a budget, fix your management, and pay us the market rate. IT is posible that the market rate was overinflated (your fault, btw owners) cause of the mid 90s revenue boom. The market was on its way to correction, but to jump start the process, we are willing to save you all the money (and more) that you claimed to have lost last season.

Any rational human would realize that the owners loss number was exagerrated to paint the gloomiest picture possible. I dont doubt that some teams lost money last year, but the reasons behind their losses have pretty much 3 different reasons behind them:

1. They are in a bad arena
2. They arent selling enough tickets
3. They have a high payroll with a bad team

Which one of these 3 "loss causing" problems are a direct result of salary? isn't it more the case of market problems, or bad management? of course.

 

[Morbo]

It's all about PR. I presume that the players approved Goodenow presenting this offer, right?

Remember Linden's comments about the 5% rollback offer? They were kind of similar..."gee, many think we're offering too much as it is".

Some have to make these comments to reinforce the "final-ness" of this offer, as per Alfredsson and Doan's recent remarks.

 

[txpd]

scaredsensfan posts, "You dont think that salaries would go even lower if they agreed to a bogus revenue-cost % number that the NHL wants?"

how about if it was a valid(rather than bogus) revenue/cost %? would that make a difference?

as i said, the reason many players are upset with that 24% proposal is that a small percentage of players will bear the brunt of that. as for what salaries would look like with a salary cap....

first thing is all of the anti cap people treat the initial $31m number as the only number. the truth is there would be movement to between $38m and $40m as part of the negotiations. As for salaries, I see a significant change in roster/payroll structure rather than across the board reductions in salary.

IMO the big money players will still get their money. Players like Broduer, Belfour, the 30 minute defensemen and the scoring champion level players will still get close to what they get now. what you wont see anymore are big dollar teams with $7m +
3rd lines and $5m 4th lines and $3.5m 3rd defensive pairs. rather than 3rd and 4th lines and 3rd defensive pairs loaded with expensive veteran players, you will see 5 to 7 entry level contract players on most teams including Detroit and Toronto.
That is where the bulk of the savings will be coming.

 

[Evman*]

How would you feel if you were Alexei Yashin?

Ouch.

 

[Satan81]

1. They are in a bad arena
2. They arent selling enough tickets
3. They have a high payroll with a bad team

Which one of these 3 "loss causing" problems are a direct result of salary? isn't it more the case of market problems, or bad management? of course.

4. They have a low payroll with a bad team
5. The "high revenue" teams pay players $11 million, driving up market value and therefore not allowing small market teams to acquire big-name players

Think about it. For example, if Jagr's salary was only say $5 million. Buffalo could afford that. It would bring more people into the arena, generate more interest in the team causing more revenue. With the current system, the separation between the "high revenue" and "low revenue" teams will only increase.

 

[FLYLine27*]

So? Did you think all the players would agree?
Do you REALLY think all the GMS agree with Bettman? Hell no.

You put into percentages of how many DISAGREE with there president (Goodenow and Bettman) and im sure maybe 5% of the players disagree what Goodenow did and Im sure about 20-25% of the owners disagree with Bettman....so your point is...??

 

[417]

Bull****, all the players knew about this 24% rollback, this is PR stunts to make it seem like the players are giving up too much, nice try...Let's see what the Owners next move is in all this charade

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Darcy Tucker has already fired off in the media about his shock at the 24% rollback in salary. The interesting thing is that there are only a handful of players that get hurt by that proposal. only a handful but those players get hurt badly. any player with a long term contract gets killed by that proposal. Jagr with 4 years left at $11m gets crushed. Olie Kolzig with 3 years at $6.5m gets hurt. several free agents signed 4 year contracts this off season. they get hurt.

Kolzig loses $4.7m over the three years. Gonchar loses his entire arbitration award, but he is on a one year contract and as a UFA will more than make up those loses as he would become one of the leagues highest paid players.

any nhl player that is unsigned as of today or in the last year of his contract doesnt get hurt much by the 24% rollback. players with multi year contracts are hung out to dry and cant be very happy

I disagree. The NHLPA offer lowered the bar accross the board.

GM's SHOULD base any salary offer on existing "reduced" contracts. So if Sundin in making $6M, that's what Iginla should be making as well. If Jason Cullimore is making $1.6M then that's what McGillis be making.

What the owners/Bettman are afraid of is that the GM's immediately give it all right back when Iginla says he's worth $9M. Of course, the owners have 100% of that in their control, so it's there own fault if that happens.

 

[Benji Frank]

How would you feel if you were Alexei Yashin?

Ouch.

The one's I'd like to hear form are the Recchi's & the Hasek's & the Nedved's and the Shanahan's and the Hull's .... the guys who took fairly signifcant cuts already this summer...

I don't know if it's just for show, but it seems like alot of guys didn't know this offer was coming. I wonder if the players are really as united as we're to believe on this thing???

 

[mackdogs*]

Bull****, all the players knew about this 24% rollback, this is PR stunts to make it seem like the players are giving up too much, nice try...Let's see what the Owners next move is in all this charade

Agree completely. I don't believe for a second that any player didn't know what was coming. After all the PA meetings we've heard about, where each teams PA rep attended and spread the word to his teammates, this is a blatant and obvious PR stunt. Truly a bush-league tactic that is so transparent I hope all fans clue into it. The PA just can't win with me.

And for the record, I'd think Mr. Yashin might be happy his astronomic salary is now starting to come down to a reasonable level. Slash off another 40% or so and he may stop being one of the jokes of the league.

 

[membleypeg]

I disagree. The NHLPA offer lowered the bar accross the board.

GM's SHOULD base any salary offer on existing "reduced" contracts. So if Sundin in making $6M, that's what Iginla should be making as well. If Jason Cullimore is making $1.6M then that's what McGillis be making.

What the owners/Bettman are afraid of is that the GM's immediately give it all right back when Iginla says he's worth $9M. Of course, the owners have 100% of that in their control, so it's there own fault if that happens.

Many posters argue that the GM's give high money contracts to players without thought. Consider the following example:

Calgary has Iginla to sign this year. Iginla will be asking for a salary to push the salary structure up (this is a given that the NHLPA demands on all of its star players). Iginla will ask for a salary from between 7-10 million per season (probably a good guess). The Flames management will have to decide whether to pay Iginla or have him sit out a season.

Management can't win in this scenario. If they pay Iginla, they start the salary escalation that has driven the past CBA contracts through the roof. If they don't pay Iginla, they are greatly diminishing their team's chances to qualify for the play-offs and contend for the Stanley Cup. The amount of money that Calgary could potentially lose from this transaction drives the GM to often give in to a players demands. The GM is also driven by fan reaction (the fans are furious that Iginla is not playing and giving the team the best chance at winning the cup). The team is forced to take all the risk in this transaction.

Consider the following scenario's

If Iginla is signed and leads his team to the cup, then the Flames have prospered from the transaction, and now the rest of the league has to deal with the new salary precident.

If Iginla signs and fails to lead his team to anything significant, then all teams including Calgary suffer from this contract escalation.

If Iginla sits out the year, and Calgary makes a significant playoff run (highly unlikely) then all NHL teams make out well for salary (though miss out on the talents of an entertaining player).

If Iginla sits out and Calgary does poorly, then the league makes out well on salary due to Calgary holding the line however, Calgary loses out on lost revenue from seat sales and playoff dates.

With this pressure on a GM, he often gives in to contract demands. This has proven itself to be the path that many of the high revenue teams have taken, especially with free agents (which don't cost the team any compensation to pluck). Just look at the high priced free agent talent that is currently on the Red Wings, Avalanche, Rangers, Leafs, Blues, Stars, and Flyers. Unfortunately for the little guy (Oilers, Flames, Penguins, Sabres, etc), they do not have the resources to match the big spenders.

When I look at this NHLPA proposal, I don't think that it will help the smaller fan base clubs for more than a year or two. Soon the big revenue GM's will spend to try and improve their chances at winning the Stanley Cup. Soon again, we will be in the same situation that we are in today.

There has to be some mechanism put in place to stop the big money GM's from trying to buy the Stanley cup (and concurrently screwing all the other teams). I don't believe the modest luxury tax that the PA has put in place will deter the big spenders. There is tremendous pressure on markets like Toronto to bring a Stanley Cup to long suffering fans, and you can be sure that Ferguson will spend if the opportunity to help his team is present.

Bettman (salary cost certainty) and Goodenough (luxury tax) have reached an impass in what the other side will entertain as an agreement. Instead of losing the season, perhaps these two should look to outside help to solve this problem. If an outside arbitrator took pieces of the agreement from both sides and found middle ground, perhaps the union and the owners might approve it in a vote. This way both Bettman and Goodenough would be off the hook from the decision, and the fans might see hockey this year. Hopefully any decision, will give all franchises an equal footing at attempting to bring home the ultimate prize in sports, the Stanley Cup.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Many posters argue that the GM's give high money contracts to players without thought. Consider the following example:

Calgary has Iginla to sign this year. Iginla will be asking for a salary to push the salary structure up (this is a given that the NHLPA demands on all of its star players). Iginla will ask for a salary from between 7-10 million per season (probably a good guess). The Flames management will have to decide whether to pay Iginla or have him sit out a season.

Management can't win in this scenario. If they pay Iginla, they start the salary escalation that has driven the past CBA contracts through the roof. If they don't pay Iginla, they are greatly diminishing their team's chances to qualify for the play-offs and contend for the Stanley Cup. The amount of money that Calgary could potentially lose from this transaction drives the GM to often give in to a players demands. The GM is also driven by fan reaction (the fans are furious that Iginla is not playing and giving the team the best chance at winning the cup). The team is forced to take all the risk in this transaction.

Consider the following scenario's

If Iginla is signed and leads his team to the cup, then the Flames have prospered from the transaction, and now the rest of the league has to deal with the new salary precident.

If Iginla signs and fails to lead his team to anything significant, then all teams including Calgary suffer from this contract escalation.

If Iginla sits out the year, and Calgary makes a significant playoff run (highly unlikely) then all NHL teams make out well for salary (though miss out on the talents of an entertaining player).

If Iginla sits out and Calgary does poorly, then the league makes out well on salary due to Calgary holding the line however, Calgary loses out on lost revenue from seat sales and playoff dates.

With this pressure on a GM, he often gives in to contract demands. This has proven itself to be the path that many of the high revenue teams have taken, especially with free agents (which don't cost the team any compensation to pluck). Just look at the high priced free agent talent that is currently on the Red Wings, Avalanche, Rangers, Leafs, Blues, Stars, and Flyers. Unfortunately for the little guy (Oilers, Flames, Penguins, Sabres, etc), they do not have the resources to match the big spenders.

When I look at this NHLPA proposal, I don't think that it will help the smaller fan base clubs for more than a year or two. Soon the big revenue GM's will spend to try and improve their chances at winning the Stanley Cup. Soon again, we will be in the same situation that we are in today.

There has to be some mechanism put in place to stop the big money GM's from trying to buy the Stanley cup (and concurrently screwing all the other teams). I don't believe the modest luxury tax that the PA has put in place will deter the big spenders. There is tremendous pressure on markets like Toronto to bring a Stanley Cup to long suffering fans, and you can be sure that Ferguson will spend if the opportunity to help his team is present.

Bettman (salary cost certainty) and Goodenough (luxury tax) have reached an impass in what the other side will entertain as an agreement. Instead of losing the season, perhaps these two should look to outside help to solve this problem. If an outside arbitrator took pieces of the agreement from both sides and found middle ground, perhaps the union and the owners might approve it in a vote. This way both Bettman and Goodenough would be off the hook from the decision, and the fans might see hockey this year. Hopefully any decision, will give all franchises an equal footing at attempting to bring home the ultimate prize in sports, the Stanley Cup.

I agree with 100% of what you said. However, I think one of the "sacrifices" the owners will have to make to get the league playing again is some personal responsibility. They have to be able to hold the line with the players, or else what's the point.

Just seems a lot like raising a child. If they don't get their way, they scream. If you give in after they scream, anytime they don't get their way, they start screaming again. The big problem is that in this situation, small market teams are relying on the big market teams to raise their children properly, something they haven't been very successful at in the past.

I do agree that they have to beef up the luxury tax (or equivelant) or you will have the same issues with the "have's" vs. the "have-nots", and it'll be this year, not one or two years down the road.

 

[Peter]

Agree completely. I don't believe for a second that any player didn't know what was coming. After all the PA meetings we've heard about, where each teams PA rep attended and spread the word to his teammates, this is a blatant and obvious PR stunt. Truly a bush-league tactic that is so transparent I hope all fans clue into it. The PA just can't win with me.

And for the record, I'd think Mr. Yashin might be happy his astronomic salary is now starting to come down to a reasonable level. Slash off another 40% or so and he may stop being one of the jokes of the league.

Have you ever belonged to a union??? Trust me I have and you don't here squat about the proposals that your union makes on behalf of you. In fact, if you aren't a union shop steward or on the union executive you don't know squat until they ask for a vote. I have no trouble believing the players were caught off guard by this.

 

[HF2002]

How would you feel if you were Alexei Yashin?

Ouch.

Like I should sit out and demand a new contract?

Cry into Carol Alt's fun bags?

 

[thinkwild]

Many posters argue that the GM's give high money contracts to players without thought. Consider the following example:

Calgary has Iginla to sign this year. Iginla will be asking for a salary to push the salary structure up (this is a given that the NHLPA demands on all of its star players). Iginla will ask for a salary from between 7-10 million per season (probably a good guess).

Its worse than you think. Iginla is going to ask for $17-24mil. And no way will Calgary be able to afford it.

 

[mackdogs*]

Have you ever belonged to a union??? Trust me I have and you don't here squat about the proposals that your union makes on behalf of you. In fact, if you aren't a union shop steward or on the union executive you don't know squat until they ask for a vote. I have no trouble believing the players were caught off guard by this.

I have, actually. IMO the player reps all knew about this offer.... they were all hinting that it was a 'serious offer where players make major concessions'. If any players didn't know it's because their rep didn't inform them. This is as bad of a PR move to me as the players calling Bettman names. Parallel to them publicizing a document that is being negotiated behind closed doors.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Players on TSN Sportscentre this evening stated that they knew nothing of the 24% rollback being part of the offer until they were informed in a conference call AFTER the deal had been presented to the NHL. I suspect that there just might be a Civil war within the PA. Hopefully this causes enough dissension for them to de-certify.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Players on TSN Sportscentre this evening stated that they knew nothing of the 24% rollback being part of the offer until they were informed in a conference call AFTER the deal had been presented to the NHL. I suspect that there just might be a Civil war within the PA. Hopefully this causes enough dissension for them to de-certify.

you do realize that would mean no hockey this season and next

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

No,it doesn't mean no hockey. It means no NHL and at this point, I don't really care for either side of greedy money grubbing bastards! I will watch Junior, American, College, Pee Wee, whatever. I will survive just fine.

 

[NYR469]

any nhl player that is unsigned as of today or in the last year of his contract doesnt get hurt much by the 24% rollback. players with multi year contracts are hung out to dry and cant be very happy

that is NOT true because those players now have to negotiate a new contract under the new market which is 24% lower

when a player goes into negotiations he says "i'm just as good as 'player A' who makes X and 'player B' who makes Y and i should be paid the same"

well if currently player A makes $5 mil and player B makes $4.5 mil, then under the new system, player A will make $3.8 mil and player B will make $3.42 mil

so using the same player comparision, that player is now asking for $3.4-3.8 mil instead of $4.5-5 mil. so his asking price has been reduced by 24% by the reduced market value...

if owners look at this scenario and say "we're going to pay based on the old market" than that owner is a friggin moron

 

[Potatoe1]

Many posters argue that the GM's give high money contracts to players without thought. Consider the following example:

Calgary has Iginla to sign this year. Iginla will be asking for a salary to push the salary structure up (this is a given that the NHLPA demands on all of its star players). Iginla will ask for a salary from between 7-10 million per season (probably a good guess). The Flames management will have to decide whether to pay Iginla or have him sit out a season.

Actually you are incorrect.

Under the players proposal, the Flames will be able to take Iginla to salary arbitration where he will be compared to other players who have had their salaries reduced by 24%.

He will probably be awarded 5 to 6 million dollars.

That's the thing about the new proposal, not only does it have the roll back but it also has specific tools that the owners can use to keep the salaries of players under 31 down.

Dam, now I'm starting to sound like Freekin Bob Goodnow.

 

[Peter]

Players on TSN Sportscentre this evening stated that they knew nothing of the 24% rollback being part of the offer until they were informed in a conference call AFTER the deal had been presented to the NHL. I suspect that there just might be a Civil war within the PA. Hopefully this causes enough dissension for them to de-certify.

Can't remember who it was, but when this lockout first began and the NHLPA were making claims that the NFL players were unhappy with their system one of the major sports networks ran an interview with a since retired NFL player. And it was he who said that none of the players knew nothing what was being proposed by their union.

I don't know why you guys don't understand it but the unions give a mandate to their union reps and to their union executive and to their union boss. And they empower them to lead and call the shots "on behalf of the union". Kinda like how government works. You don't see the PM or the President ask everyone in the country permission to pass certain bills or make certain laws. They do what they think is best for their country (whether we like it or not)....that's how unions are run. We pay taxes. Unions pay dues.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind the players knew nothing of the offer and just because they didn't doesn't mean there will be descension in the ranks. That said, if the NHL accepts a proposal or the NHLPA accepts a proposal the union will have to vote to ratify it. That is where the difficulty 'might' come in. So don't look for the boogeyman behind this...it is a natural procedure.

 

[Street Hawk]

Basic Logic...

Players would clearly be willing to take the paycut instead of sucumbing to the owners ridiculous Hard Cap.

You dont think that salaries would go even lower if they agreed to a bogus revenue-cost % number that the NHL wants?

Theres a meaning behind the fact that the owners dont want to share revenues, they dont want to help out other owners. The only way around that is to institute a hard cap that would guarantee that every team be profitable, no matter how poorly they run their busienss. Thats the point. the nhl wants to guarantee profits to all owners no matter the circumstances.

The players say: no thanks. Get a budget, fix your management, and pay us the market rate. IT is posible that the market rate was overinflated (your fault, btw owners) cause of the mid 90s revenue boom. The market was on its way to correction, but to jump start the process, we are willing to save you all the money (and more) that you claimed to have lost last season.

Any rational human would realize that the owners loss number was exagerrated to paint the gloomiest picture possible. I dont doubt that some teams lost money last year, but the reasons behind their losses have pretty much 3 different reasons behind them:

1. They are in a bad arena
2. They arent selling enough tickets
3. They have a high payroll with a bad team

Which one of these 3 "loss causing" problems are a direct result of salary? isn't it more the case of market problems, or bad management? of course.

Man, you have to look at a Revenue Sharing plan like a reasonable person Scaredsensfan.

Do, I believe the numbers reported by the NHL? No, not that high, but I do believe they are losing money and the exact amount lies somewhere between the Levitt's numbers and Forbes numbers.

But, if you agree to a Revenue Sharing plan, they you get to do this:

1) Sit down with the league and go through what is considered Revenue. Things like ticket sales, luxury boxes, concessions, tv rights, radio rights, merchandising, etc. All that stuff would be discussed.
2) You discuss the Expenses incurred to run an NHL team, like marketing, admin staff, travel expenses, rent/maintenance of a building, etc.

After figuring out what those numbers are, can the two sides decide how much percentage wise the players should get.

No logical person would automatically accept another's numbers, if you're going to be partners.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Bull****, all the players knew about this 24% rollback, this is PR stunts to make it seem like the players are giving up too much, nice try...Let's see what the Owners next move is in all this charade

Um the Proposal was finished the night before the meeting...do you think that Goodenow called up all 300+ players in the morning to tell them the proposal?