Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Sinurgy, Feb 2, 2005.
Just curious to see what everyone thinks of the latest proposal by the NHL.
The framework is there but it needs some tweaking to get the plaayers to agree to it.
It definitely could be workable, however I think it needs some significant changes in some areas. The cap as well all know will happen, however it definitely needs tweaking.
I give the offer a big thumbs down in terms of whether or not they did all they could, however, it's negotiating, and therefor they asked for more than they expect...
It's unrealistic to expect the players to accept a hard cap. It's also a little low. I'd raise it a little bit and soften it up. Throw in a luxury tax for the bigger market teams and make it worthwhile. Don't just satisfy the Edmonton's, Pittsburgh's and Calgary's.
I also don't get how they expect every team to get under that kind of cap if the league started back up.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
If they want a cap so badly, it should be reasonable.
In reality, this offer was put out there for PR. They knew it would get rejected.
Needs to do a little more for the players, particularly on arbitration and qualifying offers, but it's an improvement and should be close to good enough.
The league has conceded virtually nothing from it's proposal back in September.
- They've added a meaningless partnership clause with the players. If the league makes $200 million in a season, that's $75 million over the threshold, and $37.5 million for the players. Divide by 800 players, and you have $45 000/ per player. Next to nothing, relatively speaking. Even if the league does turn a fat profit, which is unlikely.
- They've come off their ridiculous $33 million hard cap to a $40 million linkage number. If revenues drop next year (which they will, due to negative effects of the lockout), the $40 million linkage figure drops significantly. Linkage is worse than a hard cap for the players.
- They've added the 24% rollback the players proposed, without giving any concessions in return.
- They've made no attempt to come up with a formula for revenue sharing amongst owners, and no formula for what consititutes revenue.
- They've made no concessions in terms of arbitration, entry-level salaries, and qualifying offers. Plus have added a no-holdout provision.
Essentially this proposal features the exact linkage the owners want, settles every major point in favour of the owners, incorporates the rollback which was supposed to be a cap alternative, and offers nothing in return. All the owners are doing is recycling the same basic proposal over and over, and changing the bells and whistles slightly every time to try and win public approval. They haven't made a single major concession in this whole process. By contrast, the players have made about 5 huge concessions (lower qualifying offers, 2-way arbitration, luxury tax, entry-level salary restrictions, 24% rollback).
For RFAs, this proposal is almost more restrictive than the deals Eagleson negotiated while in the owners' pocket back in the 1980s.
Linkage is the backbreaker here. Their is no way the players will sign with that kind of linkage. I am still not sure they would accept any cap but with tahat linkage I can see the cap staying at 20 - 28 Million for the next 5 to 10 years. I don't know why they don't just put in a max player salary at a comfortable level.with revenue sharing amung owners in a luxuary tax sytem.
MS, What part of BILLION DOLLAR LOSSES over 10 years doesn't sink through with you, other fans and the NHLPA?
Just because the owners offered a system that you didn't like, doesn't mean the owners are being unfair.
Same as the NHLPA offer, not being an unfair practice.
Both sides are on two totally different planes and it won't change until one decides to move off their stance, which will be the players.
Players must realize, if season is cancelled the owners will be united more than ever and the next CBA proposal in December will be much worse for their bank accounts.
Face it, NHLPA had it really good for ten years and now NHL is back to restructuring their business plan to a more than fair partnership.
I don't think they need to win public approval. The PR battle has been a slaughter to this point. In fact as many have all ready pointed out, the image of the players has taken a huge hit and based on recent player comments it's only getting worse. Anyway, personally I think the proposal needs some tweaks but then it should be good enough.
I understand the losses. But (as I see it at least), the league is not negotiating toward being on an even foothold. They're trying to use the obvious leverage they have over the players to wrangle out an absolute sweetheart deal. Which this would be if it went through. The league's losses aren't just due to player salaries - they're due to rotten arena leases in some markets, poor franchise locations, over-expansion, the disappearance of a quality TV deal, overall poor league marketing and so on. The league is trying to put the whole thing on the players (and then some) to avoid dealing with the other problems they've created. If a deal like this goes through, they've created a profitable league in spite of a decade of awful management, without fixing any of their mistakes. Nice deal if you can get it.
I agree the players might be forced to cut their losses and accept something along these lines because clearly they have little leverage. But I don't think the owners are being 'fair' and concessions don't need to go nearly this far to have a healthy league. The RFA concessions and entry-level restrictions being discussed, plus a stiff luxury tax over $38-40 million or so, plus a concerted effort from the owners at revenue sharing, would almost certainly fix most of the league's problems. But instead they're sabotaging the season to try for the home run, because they think the PA will eventually cave.
The proposal is calculated. They put in everything they wanted and even some stuff the players offered so that if they try the impasse route, they get, for the time being, linkage, a cap AND the 24% rollback as this will probably be their last proposal.
I don't know what so bad about adding a soft cap at $42M and making a hard cap at $47M. If you don't want to pay the tax don't go over $42M
While I'd have no problem with that, it's not as simple as paying the tax/not paying the tax.
Fact is what one teams pays affects other teams. It affects their level of competitiveness and it affects the league's salary structure.
Like I said, this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable compromise, but there are consequences the league may be unwilling the accept. I hope I'm wrong.
the players have lost just as much money as the owners in the last 10 years, what are the owners going to concede to the players so that also can make up their 1 billion dollar loss ?
Ok, I'll bite. What is your angle?
yup .. this offer was solely designed to ram down the players throats in court.
it made zero attempt to compromise or to bring the players to the table.
if the owners wanted to compromise, they would have offered a soft cap at 42m and luxury taxes up to the 50m mark. they would have made the # contingent on salaries only and would have not skewered the 24% rollback offer.
the 24% BS they just pulled is a major insult to the PA. you think they wouldnt look at that and say, huh ?
the league had no interest in bargaining for a deal, only negotiating to screw the players.
its the owners who want to change the system. it behooves them to find the common ground, not the other way around. the playres sais "linkage = no deal". period end of story. what part of that makes the owners think otherwise ?
just like the last 10 years prove, the owners have no idea how to negotiate. if they did, the league wouldnt have needed to locko ut the players and would have had this labour stoppage resolved.
i say let the owners rot.
how much salary have the players lost this season ? jsut as much as the owners have lost in the last 10 years.
so both sides can claim equal losses in the last 10 years.
Your in agreement that the owners arent losing much money during the lockout I notice ... and the bleeding has just started. Just imagine how long its going to take to rebuild the revenues now - Im going to bet it will take 5 years of pain to get where they were when the lockout started. Another billion perhaps? two?
what happens if the season gets cancelled and the league has to virtually rebuild its fan base with unpopular players? you might think the lack of popularity will be temporary but I wont forget and neither will most of the people on this board and dozens of others like it across the continent. I think the players are going to be losing money for 5 years while the owners are going to be making money as soon as the doors open for the NHL again. Maybe making money for the first time in years in some markets.
Separate names with a comma.