Ray Ferarro archived radio - says Players starting to waver about "no-cap" stance

Status
Not open for further replies.

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
T@T said:
Sure,accept the fact the league is losing money and take a 1.3m offer for the good of the game.

Do you know what 1,3M$ vs 1,8M$ means aside from the average salary ? There's more than that in negociations.

I don't think the players don't want to go from 1,8M$ to 1,3M$ but they don't want it disguise in a 5-way cap !

And about the good of the game please you look like a child who still believe in Santa.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
Thunderstruck said:
If the PA is so concerned about revenues dropping in the year(s) after a cap, would they be interested in a cap set at $32 - $42M for the first 3 years followed by a linkage at 56%?

Or the NHL puts forth an offer of $30M-$45M hard range, but the top end can expand to 55% of revenue (linkage) if 55% > $45M. Owners get linkage in good times and certainty at all times, and the players know that salaries won't fall off the map when revenues go south (hopefully for the game they don't stay south). So sensible that I'm sure someone else has already suggested it, but I must have missed it.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
Russian Fan said:
I don't think the players don't want to go from 1,8M$ to 1,3M$ but they don't want it disguise in a 5-way cap !

This 5-way cap garbage is another reason I hate Glen Healy. He calls entry-level restrictions one of his caps despite both sides agreeing that they will continue with it (in some form).

Every syllable from his ugly yap makes me want to break things.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
sveiglar said:
This 5-way cap garbage is another reason I hate Glen Healy. He calls entry-level restrictions one of his caps despite both sides agreeing that they will continue with it (in some form).

Every syllable from his ugly yap makes me want to break things.

Again stop reading a name & put words on why it's crap ? Can you say more than ''I hate Glenn Hate that's why it's crap'' to prove your point.

A) Maximum years of contract = 1 CAP
B) Individual cap of 6M$ = 1 CAP
C) Max payroll = 1 CAP
D) Entry level salary with NO BONUS = 1 CAP

Maybe some of it is true , maybe some of it is false but it's no different with the owners side where each week they leak something that most media follow like a bone for a dog.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
Russian Fan said:
Again stop reading a name & put words on why it's crap ? Can you say more than ''I hate Glenn Hate that's why it's crap'' to prove your point.

Fine.

A) Maximum years of contract = 1 CAP

Wow, this isn't an indefinite contract. I'm shocked.

B) Individual cap of 6M$ = 1 CAP

Has never been proposed by the NHL. Their last proposal said "it may be of mutual interest to negotiate one", but that's just a throw-away.

C) Max payroll = 1 CAP

This, obviously, is the big one.

D) Entry level salary with NO BONUS = 1 CAP

Bonus structure is within a pre-existing rookie cap, but I'm sure is negotiable once the players agree to a payroll cap.

Saying there are five caps (and at one point he tried to suggest that "really it was more like seven caps".. the smorgasbord of caps as he likes to call it) is at best inflammatory and at worst a complete lie.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
sveiglar said:
Or the NHL puts forth an offer of $30M-$45M hard range, but the top end can expand to 55% of revenue (linkage) if 55% > $45M. Owners get linkage in good times and certainty at all times, and the players know that salaries won't fall off the map when revenues go south (hopefully for the game they don't stay south). So sensible that I'm sure someone else has already suggested it, but I must have missed it.


The owners would be taking a bit of a gamble that the loss in revenue will only be short-term, so the PA shouldn't be allowed to benefit by the cap moving up if 55% >45. I would offer the profit sharing that the owners had in their previous proposal instead.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
Thunderstruck said:
The owners would be taking a bit of a gamble that the loss in revenue will only be short-term, so the PA shouldn't be allowed to benefit by the cap moving up if 55% >45. I would offer the profit sharing that the owners had in their previous proposal instead.

If they get certainty, even at this level, then with sufficient revenue-sharing such that the low-earners can meet the floor it should be offered. This isn't about crushing the union; it's about getting back on the ice. Doing it this way gives the players something (the potential for increased payrolls in prosperous times) in exchange for taking the cap. I think they'd go for this ahead of the profit-sharing, though both do somewhat of the same thing.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
sveiglar said:
If they get certainty, even at this level, then with sufficient revenue-sharing such that the low-earners can meet the floor it should be offered. This isn't about crushing the union; it's about getting back on the ice. Doing it this way gives the players something (the potential for increased payrolls in prosperous times) in exchange for taking the cap. I think they'd go for this ahead of the profit-sharing, though both do somewhat of the same thing.

Profit sharing is a nice carrot, but doesn't have inflationary side-effects. Upward only pressure on the cap is inherently inflationary.

The issue to me is risk-reward.

If the PA isn't willing to take any risk, then offer less reward.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Thunderstruck said:
Profit sharing is a nice carrot, but doesn't have inflationary side-effects. Upward only pressure on the cap is inherently inflationary.

The issue to me is risk-reward.

If the PA isn't willing to take any risk, then offer less reward.

agreed. If the PA doesn't want a cap to float downwards with a decrease in revenues they don't get that reward of it moving up when revenues rebound above current levels. There can still be a reward but as you say it isn't going to be as big.

To be frank I have no problem with setting a cap that is tied to revenues with a clause that it won't drop below an certain dollar amount for the first 3-4 years of the deal. A cap at $45 mil (or whatever the percentage is) with the promise it won't drop below $40 mil.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
misterjaggers said:
Everything else is negotiable once the players accept the framework.

Then why don't they say that? Why don't they say -- look, take our damn salary ranges concept and we'll wipe away every other piece of garbage in our vindictive "proposal" and let's play some hockey?
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
sveiglar said:
..... This isn't about crushing the union; it's about getting back on the ice...
this is where you are wrong. this is ALL about crushing the union. well, let me clarify, this about PUNISHING the union.

dr
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
gc2005 said:
Then why don't they say that? Why don't they say -- look, take our damn salary ranges concept and we'll wipe away every other piece of garbage in our vindictive "proposal" and let's play some hockey?


Bettman's publicly said the same thing misterjaggers said probably 50 times.
 

sveiglar

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
8,585
4
DR said:
this is where you are wrong. this is ALL about crushing the union. well, let me clarify, this about PUNISHING the union.

dr

Ok, I mean it shouldn't be about crushing/punishing the union... though I guess we're well beyond the "should be" point at this stage.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Greschner4 said:
Bettman's publicly said the same thing misterjaggers said probably 50 times.

That's funny, I didn't see in the last proposal where it said "all the other restrictions in here, just kidding if you accept the linkage".

Sure he claims they're negotiable. He's probably thinking - if the PA agrees to the framework, I'll bump up the league minimum all the way to $305,000. Point is, open and upfront, at this stage of the game all other points of contention should definitely be scrapped by the NHL in hopes of luring the PA into accepting linkage. Conversely, if the NHL wants to move off of linkage, then they keep all the other crap in there.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
DR said:
this is where you are wrong. this is ALL about crushing the union. well, let me clarify, this about PUNISHING the union.

dr

How exactly was the NHL supposed to bring this PA to its senses without a few stiff slaps to the face?

Let's see how far the NHL is willing to go in its final offer before we pronounce judgement on their motivation.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
gc2005 said:
That's funny, I didn't see in the last proposal where it said "all the other restrictions in here, just kidding if you accept the linkage".

Sure he claims they're negotiable. He's probably thinking - if the PA agrees to the framework, I'll bump up the league minimum all the way to $305,000. Point is, open and upfront, at this stage of the game all other points of contention should definitely be scrapped by the NHL in hopes of luring the PA into accepting linkage. Conversely, if the NHL wants to move off of linkage, then they keep all the other crap in there.


Once the PA agrees to the framework, it doesn't follow that they have to take the rest of the package.

Why haven't they explored how flexible the NHL would be if they did accept linkage?
 

fan mao rong

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
968
0
port royal , pa
Visit site
I think the idea of "if a player has not signed after 2 weeks of training camp he is ineligible for that season" is a great idea. Ownership should sign no deal that does not include this fine idea. Anybody who doesn't wish to sign up by this time, go to Europe. LINKAGE--- if the players won't accede to this reasonable request, then obviously they must expect ownership to underwrite their lifestyle with millions upon millions of their personal fortunes when their generation of revenue does not remotely warrant it. Why doesn't this work in any other business? Why doesn't every hired hand demand to be bankrolled to the tune of millions beyond their revenue generation and bankrupt their employers? Paying to underwrite Elite Level hockey is not remotely needed to generate revenue. When the players are continuing their obstruction of business, other things will be found to fill the time of sports channels and to fill 41 to 60 days of arena rentals. There are sports below this level who might move on up. If any of them are sucessful they might not want the players back at any price. They don't need to rush into an impasse situation, just try out other sports for their spot.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
How exactly was the NHL supposed to bring this PA to its senses without a few stiff slaps to the face?

Let's see how far the NHL is willing to go in its final offer before we pronounce judgement on their motivation.
lets see ..

if the NHL was at all interested in getting the PA to negotiate on a cap, they would have said something like

if you give in to a cap, we can offer you this and this and this. but nooooooo, the NHL has said, take a cap AND yuo will also give up this and this and this.

the NHL has made little attempt to give anything back to the PA in these discussions. thats because they want to punish the union and they dont care if it costs a season (or 2) to get it.

dr
 

SENSible1*

Guest
DR said:
lets see ..

if the NHL was at all interested in getting the PA to negotiate on a cap, they would have said something like

if you give in to a cap, we can offer you this and this and this. but nooooooo, the NHL has said, take a cap AND yuo will also give up this and this and this.

the NHL has made little attempt to give anything back to the PA in these discussions. thats because they want to punish the union and they dont care if it costs a season (or 2) to get it.

dr

The NHL has been attempting to get the PA to accept the hardness of their stance and their determination to get a deal that works for them. How exactly would a soft bargaining position be seen as anything but a sign of weakness by the PA?

The NHL has been sending a much needed message.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
gc2005 said:
That's funny, I didn't see in the last proposal where it said "all the other restrictions in here, just kidding if you accept the linkage".

Sure he claims they're negotiable. He's probably thinking - if the PA agrees to the framework, I'll bump up the league minimum all the way to $305,000. Point is, open and upfront, at this stage of the game all other points of contention should definitely be scrapped by the NHL in hopes of luring the PA into accepting linkage. Conversely, if the NHL wants to move off of linkage, then they keep all the other crap in there.

He's said from day one that if the PA accepts the concept of a cap everything else is negotiable. The PA hasn't accepted a cap, so there's no reason for Bettman to negotiate against himself on "everything else."
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
DR said:
this is where you are wrong. this is ALL about crushing the union. well, let me clarify, this about PUNISHING the union.

dr


I think it's all about saving the owners from themselves. It's been proven they can not control themselves and the only way to do so it to limit how much some of the morons can spend. The problem is you have 30 different owners with 30 different goals. Sure they all want to win the cup, but some are willing to assume huge risks of losing money to do so, and some aren't willing to do that.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Thunderstruck said:
Once the PA agrees to the framework, it doesn't follow that they have to take the rest of the package.

Why haven't they explored how flexible the NHL would be if they did accept linkage?

Why hasn't the league explored how flexible the NHLPA would be if they accepted a luxury tax?

I'm saying if the league truly wants the PA to accept linkage, if that's the only important issue, then entice them into it. Don't try to shove it down their throats with all the other crap in the proposal. If linkage is all they want, then linkage is all they should ask for. And, looking at this with a bit of common sense, if they get the linkage, they don't need all the other crap. The other crap's only purpose is to cheese off the union.

The PA simply saying "okay, we'll take linkage, now let's talk about getting rid of the other stuff" doesn't work. Once they've accepted linkage, there's no incentive for the owners to start giving in on all the other stuff too. THAT would show a weakness on the PA's part, and the greedy owners would be so pumped they'd want to pursue all the punitive parts that are currently on the table as well.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
gc2005 said:
The PA simply saying "okay, we'll take linkage, now let's talk about getting rid of the other stuff" doesn't work. Once they've accepted linkage, there's no incentive for the owners to start giving in on all the other stuff too. THAT would show a weakness on the PA's part, and the greedy owners would be so pumped they'd want to pursue all the punitive parts that are currently on the table as well.

In reality, the exact opposite is true. Once the PA has accepted the framework, they can leverage their continuing to pursue that path against ANY and ALL parts they find unacceptable. (i.e. PA to NHL: We'll keep linkage on the table ONLY if you accept taking X, Y and Z out of the deal) If, as it has repeatedly stated, the NHL primary goal is a linkage between revenues and salaries, they have HUGE incentive to compromise on other issues once the PA has agreed to the framework.

To pretend otherwise is foolish.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
gc2005 said:
Why hasn't the league explored how flexible the NHLPA would be if they accepted a luxury tax?

I'm saying if the league truly wants the PA to accept linkage, if that's the only important issue, then entice them into it. Don't try to shove it down their throats with all the other crap in the proposal. If linkage is all they want, then linkage is all they should ask for. And, looking at this with a bit of common sense, if they get the linkage, they don't need all the other crap. The other crap's only purpose is to cheese off the union.

The PA simply saying "okay, we'll take linkage, now let's talk about getting rid of the other stuff" doesn't work. Once they've accepted linkage, there's no incentive for the owners to start giving in on all the other stuff too. THAT would show a weakness on the PA's part, and the greedy owners would be so pumped they'd want to pursue all the punitive parts that are currently on the table as well.

Because they don't want a deal without a salary cap, one. That I know.

Two, I'll guess, because the one time the PA suggested a cap it was so comically toothless.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Thunderstruck said:
The NHL has been attempting to get the PA to accept the hardness of their stance and their determination to get a deal that works for them. How exactly would a soft bargaining position be seen as anything but a sign of weakness by the PA?

The NHL has been sending a much needed message.

Don't you think it's a little late in the game to try to convey messages about the hardness of one's stance? They want a cap, we get it already. Instead of posturing, shouldn't they be more concerned about working towards a deal?

This wouldn't be showing weakness, they'd still be firm on their main goal. What it would be showing is a willingness to actually work towards a deal.

I may be naive, but if nothing else changes, a deal with linkage and the salary cap ranges will still work wonders for the owners. You will never get players to give in to all your demands, so at least throw the possibility out there of having just the linkage and no other purely vindictive and punitive measures from an owner's wish list thrown in any more CBA proposals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->