Proposed Cba Solution

[regehr]

Here's my 10-point proposed solution - it is a middle ground between the NHL and NHLPA, with a few additional innovations....
Thoughts?

*****

PROPOSED SOLUTION (10-point plan)

1) Immediate Rollback:
< $850,000: no rollback
$850k-$1.5m: 16% rollback
$1.5m-$2m: 20% rollback
$2m-$4m: 24% rollback
$4m-$6m: 28% rollback
>$6m: 32% rollback
(adjustments necessary at thresholds)

2) Arbitration:
Two-way arbitration.
Both teams and players can elect (players by July 1, teams by Aug 1)
High/low system - arbitrator picks one or the other offer.
Absolute cut-off date for contracts = 1st day of season.
1st day of season establishes team payroll (for luxury tax purposes).

3) Entry system:
a) Cap base salary at $850k.
b) Cap signing bonus at 25% of base salary.
c) All performance bonuses paid by League according to established schedule
(see #8 below)

4) Qualifying Offers:
< $850,000: 100% of previous salary
$850k-$1.5m: 95% of previous salary
$1.5m-$2m: 90% of previous salary
$2m-$4m: 85% of previous salary
$4m-$6m: 80% of previous salary
>$6m: 75% of previous salary
(adjustments necessary at thresholds)
Negotiated increase in payroll threshold in subsequent years
(proportional to change in league revenues)

5) Free Agency:
Reduce unrestricted free agency to 30 yrs or 500 games (min age = 28 yrs).

6) Minimum Salary:
Raise to $350k.

7) Systemic Changes:
a) Payroll tax:
Install luxury tax on payroll.
< $40m = no tax
$40-$44m = 100% tax on amount over $40m
$44-$48m = 105% tax on amount over $40m
$48-$52m = 110% tax on amount over $40m
$52-$56m = 115% tax on amount over $40m
$56-$60m = 120% tax on amount over $40m
>$60m = 125% tax on amount over $40m
5% increases in tax rates for repeat offenders
Negotiated increase in payroll threshold in subsequent years
(proportional to change in league revenues)
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $25-40m.
(after individual bonuses paid, see #8 below)
If payroll < $25m, teams do not receive a share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).
b) Player salary tax:
Install luxury tax on individual player salaries over $4m.
<$4m: no tax
$4-5m: 15% tax
>$5m: 30% tax
Negotiated increase in payroll threshold in subsequent years
(proportional to change in league revenues)
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $30-40m.
If payroll < $30m, do not get share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).
c) Bonuses: see #8 below.

8) League Bonuses:
All bonuses to be paid by the League, according to established schedule.
'A', 'B' and 'C' bonuses as per entry-level system.
Paid for by, first, the luxury individual salary tax and,
second, by the luxury payroll tax pool. Bonuses to be negotiated between
League and Union.
a) 'A' bonuses as per entry system with the following adjustments:
i) forward icetime: top 6 (from top 9)
ii) forward +/-: top 3 (from +10 or top 3 for non-playoff team)
iii) forward team PP/PK: top 6 (from top 10)
iv) defense icetime: top 3 (from top 4)
v) defense +/-: top 3 (from +10 or top 3 for non-playoff team)
vi) defense team PP/PK: top 6 (from top 10)
vii) goalie GAA: <2.75 GAA (from 3-3.25 or < 3)
viii) goalie save %: >.910 (from >.890)
ix) goalie winning %: .600 (from .500)
x) shutouts: 5 (from 4)
b) 'B' bonuses as per entry system with the following adjustments:
i) top 5 voting for Selke, Bud-Light, Vezina (from top 10)
ii) top 10 in league for forward 'A' bonuses (from top 15)
iii) top 10 in league for defense 'A' bonuses (from top 15)
iv) top 5 in league for goalie 'A' bonuses (from top 10)
c) limit 'C' bonuses to $20k for education.
Travel, accommodation, tickets for entry-level players only.

9) Revenue Sharing:
Bring average revenue of bottom half of teams within 20% of highest-revenue teams.

10) League Council:
Establish League Council to make improvements to the game and its marketing.

Click to read more...

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

Looks good to me. You get my vote.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I normally hate these proposals, but this one is pretty good. The only things I would change is the contract cut off date (all contracts must be registered prior to that or you do not play for the year, even if you sign) and the payroll tax. It has to have more bite and be defined where that money goes and what it can be used for. Personally I do not think that the money should be earmarked for salaries, as this is inflationary. I would also like to see this tied to revenues and worked in as a percentage of revenues. Beyond that, its a great framework. Nice job.

 

[Nimrods Son]

The union will never agree to the proposed luxury tax you have. I like the proposal though.

 

[SuperUnknown]

If I was the NHLPA, here would be my initial "cap" proposal to get hockey this year:

1- This year would play under the old cba (the shortened season). Could almost request that next season too plays under old cba.
2- Starting next year (or year after), salary treshold:
- Minimum cap at 56% of revenues for player salaries (and not costs) - $37M
- Maximum cap at 63% of revenues for player salaries (like NFL) - $42M
3- Status quo on arbitration
4- Rookie cap at $1M + bonus cap at $500k
5- Guaranteed contracts
6- Free agency at age 27
7- Qualifying offers at 110% for players under $1M, at 100% for all others
8- Buyout at 2/3 of remaining contract
9- 6 or 7 years cba (5 under salary cap + 1 or 2 under current cba rules)

I feel this would be a decent proposal that would get the ball rolling and it would put pressure on the NHL to "save the season", since the players would have accepted cost certainty. It leaves plenty of negociation room to reach something that would be agreeable by the players and would surely be better than what they'd get with a cba forced down their throat.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I normally hate these proposals, but this one is pretty good. The only things I would change is the contract cut off date (all contracts must be registered prior to that or you do not play for the year, even if you sign) and the payroll tax. It has to have more bite and be defined where that money goes and what it can be used for. Personally I do not think that the money should be earmarked for salaries, as this is inflationary. I would also like to see this tied to revenues and worked in as a percentage of revenues. Beyond that, its a great framework. Nice job.

I agree, a great post featuring the kind of system that could really work for the NHL. And as you said the only problem with it is that if there is too much money in the 'payroll' pool than this luxury tax could be inflationary. Out of the team payroll taxes and individual salary taxes that are stated, I think that a certain percentage needs to go directly into the pockets of small market teams or teams that can't make a certain amount of revenues.

The salary level of the league as a whole will be resolved by this proposal, but the fact that individual teams are losing more than others should also be resolved, which can be done by allowing some of the tax money to go directly to those losing markets rather than into a 'play for pay' pool.

If the right amount of tax was going to players for performance and the right amount helping out the bottom line of markets that need the help, in a way that the system wouldn't be inflationary, than this proposal could work.

 

[PecaFan]

I like your QO system, but the rest strikes me as a system that *both* sides would refuse.

The players would refuse the rollbacks, and the tax system, as they've done previously.

The owners would refuse the revenue sharing, bringing the bottom to within 20% of the top would be *massive*. And the owners want less arbitration, not more. Taking more players to arbitration was not a concession by the players, btw. That's a bonus for them, the owners taking players to arbitration just gets more players into the massive salary increase machine.

This line is a *huge* problem:
"1st day of season establishes team payroll (for luxury tax purposes)."

Basically, you've provided a tax free day. You don't sign your expensive players until after the first day of the season. You trade for a superstar on the second day of the season, and his $10 million salary doesn't count? Not going to work.

Ultimately, all CBA proposals boil down to one thing: what the owners will accept the players won't, and vice versa.

The only way a deal gets done is when one side cracks.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

7) Systemic Changes:
a) Payroll tax:
Install luxury tax on payroll.
< $40m = no tax
$40-$44m = 100% tax on amount over $40m
$44-$48m = 105% tax on amount over $40m
$48-$52m = 110% tax on amount over $40m
$52-$56m = 115% tax on amount over $40m
$56-$60m = 120% tax on amount over $40m
>$60m = 125% tax on amount over $40m
5% increases in tax rates for repeat offenders
Negotiated increase in payroll threshold in subsequent years
(proportional to change in league revenues)
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $25-40m.
(after individual bonuses paid, see #8 below)
If payroll < $25m, teams do not receive a share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).

Nice idea's

I think you would have to drop the Luxury amounts down $4m and start at 36m though.

IMO 95% of the players and the league would take this proposal but sadly i don't think Goodenow would as it would restricks his babys (top 5% paid players)

 

[regehr]

I like your QO system, but the rest strikes me as a system that *both* sides would refuse.

The players would refuse the rollbacks, and the tax system, as they've done previously.

The owners would refuse the revenue sharing, bringing the bottom to within 20% of the top would be *massive*. And the owners want less arbitration, not more. Taking more players to arbitration was not a concession by the players, btw. That's a bonus for them, the owners taking players to arbitration just gets more players into the massive salary increase machine.

This line is a *huge* problem:
"1st day of season establishes team payroll (for luxury tax purposes)."

Basically, you've provided a tax free day. You don't sign your expensive players until after the first day of the season. You trade for a superstar on the second day of the season, and his $10 million salary doesn't count? Not going to work.

Ultimately, all CBA proposals boil down to one thing: what the owners will accept the players won't, and vice versa.

The only way a deal gets done is when one side cracks.

If both side would refuse it, it means that it is probably approaching a compromise solution. Just to clarify: the revenue sharing is to bring the *average* of the bottom half of teams within 20% of the average of the top half of teams (not to bring the bottommost team within 20% of the topmost team). The deal with the cut-off date is that if you don't sign before the season start, you don't play (i.e. you cannot sign a player after the first day of the season, unless they clear waivers first).