*RUMORED* NHLPA Proposal

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by FLYLine27*, Dec 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    I think that is a very fair STARTING Point and if Bettman saids that the NHLPA are not taking it serious still then im sure he will loose a lot of support.
     
  2. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think if that's the offer the NHL is certainly being put into a tough call. That's a much better deal than the previous one, and if that is not enough to get the owners talking mre seriously, I don't know if they ever will. Clearly they'd come back with different numbers to tax, such as tax at 40, rather than 44. (I think between 40-45 million is a reasonable number), as well as likely ask for a 15% rollback, but hey, we'll see.

    I hope this gets the deal done...or started.
     
  3. ZombieMatt

    ZombieMatt Registered User

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I feel that would be a very good start to getting negotiations moving.
     
  4. GabbyDugan

    GabbyDugan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Since the NHLPA has several more days to fine tune their initial bid to kick start negotiations, there surely will be several similar leaks . Bruce Garrioch also mentions a "possible" 10% rollback on existing contracts.....

    http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Sports/2004/12/03/763602.html


    He adds:

    "- A stiffer luxury tax than the one proposed Sept. 9 with realistic thresholds starting at around $40 million (all terms US) and larger fines for teams that spend more than $60 million.

    - A change to the arbitration system that's more favourable for the owners. One possibility is a baseball-type system where the NHLPA gives a number, the team gives a number and the arbitrator must choose one or the other.

    - There also could be a change with the rookie salary cap placed at $850,000 and a lower bonus structure put in place."
     
  5. copperandblue

    copperandblue Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    10,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    THIS is the creative alternative that took 3 months to formulate? Wow....

    Sarcasm aside, there is probably be a starting point in there somewhere...
     
  6. If that's true, and we're not playing hockey by mid-january, we gotta start asking ourselves if Bettman's got ulterior motives: IE, Destroy the NHL

    There is no reason the NHL can't work off that proposal.
     
  7.  
  8. Mothra

    Mothra The Groovy Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Home Page:
    Well.....if thats the deal than I expect a very short meeting.....

    the "controls" over arbitration would be pretty key, more info needed on that issue...but to me it looks like the players arent really giving up that much. The 10% cutback is such a short term thing....depending on the arbitration controls the salaries could shoot right back up in no time......they intend to throw rookies under the bus, but thats to be expected......

    The NHL says it wont bend on the cap issue....as does the PA....there is no comprimise/negotiations until that is solved. Like it or not I believe the NHL will not give that up and they are totally ready to kill the season. The PA says it wont cave.....but I believe at some point they will.

    This would be no different than the NHL raising what they would like the hard cap to be.....there is a fundamental difference that can not be compromised....one side has to give in to the others fundamental structure, then the specifics can be negotiated
     
  9. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    52,208
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Home Page:
    as a starting point for negotiations is there any potential movement from this proposal toward a salary cap? because that is the bottom line in all of this.

    as long as the players offer luxury tax and reject out of hand anything with a salary cap in it, the owner can only negotiate if they are first willing to give up the one main thing they say they need...the salary cap. accepting less than the cap makes the owners liars.

    so...are you all sure that a luxury tax threshold at $44m(about the top half of the league) at 75cents on the dollar is enough to make the owners come off the salary cap they have come off of twice before and been burned and have said they require this time???
     
  10. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    BETTMAN is going to HAVE TO REALIZE that he cannot play KING with the players. He will be out on his @$$ if he keeps up his current stratagy...."Keep the players locked out until they meet his demands" It aint going to happen.
     
  11. Mothra

    Mothra The Groovy Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Home Page:
    The only way I see the owners back off a salary cap is if contracts are not guaranteed
     
  12. Mothra

    Mothra The Groovy Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Home Page:
    I doubt he will be flipping burgers....so what do you mean "out on his @$$"?

    If the NHL dies it dies.....both sides are at fault....but if the players want to live overseas and play for less than they would if they accepted a cap...thats their right
     
  13. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,607
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    Of course not.

    But it might be enough for the players to avoid having a cap imposed on them later via impasse. This year is finished, the battle going to be about next year pretty soon.
     
  14. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    Well what i heard on a Radio station (WHICH IM NOT CLAIMING IS TRUE BY ANY MEANS...because they are not very realiable) is that the flames are forcasted to loose anywhere from 5-7 MILLION dollars if the season is lost. That alone could be the fate of the Flames. But if..IF that was true people will blame Bettman because it was his idea to lock the players out until they agreed to what he wanted.
     
  15. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    52,208
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Home Page:
    let me ask a couple of questions. lets assume that bettman is not an outright liar and that the NHL truely believes that they need a salary cap to fix the system.
    the VERY FIRST THING that Bettman must give up is the salary cap. in order to negotiate at all the very first thing that the NHL must give up is the one thing they said they needed. conversely the one thing the players said they would not compromise on is the only thing they dont compromise on.

    have you not noticed that the very first step in this process has the NHL caving in and the NHLPA winning its most important battle? first thing.

    here is another question. aer you against the salary cap? are you for a luxury tax?
     
  16. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    I guess it just matters who from the owners show up. Daly has said they will look at a luxury tax, then Bettman says no to a luxury tax. I guess if we want a deal to be done Daly soon better be in the room.
     
  17. txpd

    txpd Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    52,208
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Home Page:
    that is assuming the league is going to negotiate based on this proposal. the nhl will not do that. they may offer a revised salary cap proposal. but i dont see the owners first step being tossing the salary cap in the dumpster.
     
  18. Mothra

    Mothra The Groovy Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    7,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Home Page:
    The NHL has already stated that some/many teams will lose less money by not playing.....of course they are losing money right now...but is it less than they would if they played? Thats what the NHL says and is a big part of their arguement
     
  19. Drake1588

    Drake1588 UNATCO

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    28,480
    Likes Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    The immediate rollback, in my opinion, probably won't be the big deal from an owner perspective, but the major increase of the tax from 10-15% tax on every dollar over $44 million to 75% is a pretty sizeable concession.

    Something to keep in mind is that the players are trying to negotiate. If you take the NHL at its word, negotiation was not really its stated goal. There IS no negotiation if they retain their desired salary cap as a demand. Any middle ground is by definition somewhere between a salary cap in the mid-30 millions and an open system... most observers seem to think that middle ground between the two positions consists of various revenue-sharing mechanisms. The players have offered something that, while not ideal yet, is a start.

    I think a lot of fans will look at this proposal... a 75 cent tax for every dollar spent above about $44 million... and consider that to be a good starting point for serious negotiations. You can redistribute a lot of money if teams spend a considerable amount above that, and if teams do not spend that money, then the league thereby achieves some of its desired costs controls.

    I think the league loses a lot of its fan goodwill if it dismisses this proposal. I do not think most fans expected this NHLPA proposal to have this much meat to it. The PA has made it very hard for the league to stay away from the bargaining table now.
     
  20. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    I'm quite sure that both sides have their bottom lines and I'm also sure that what has been presented to the public by BOTH sides is simply posturing to get the most favourable deal possible.

    Would Bettman lie about only settling for cost certainty?
    Of course he would. If the players put a $20 M dollar tax number on the table with a dollar for dollar over the number Bettman would snap it up in a minute.

    The question then becomes, how much are the players willing to give up to get the owners off the cap?
    At some point they'd have to come to the conclusion they'd be better off just settling for a soft cap.
     
  21. GabbyDugan

    GabbyDugan Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    74

    The executive committee that has been invited by the NHLPA should be roughly these people, who were the last people the NHLPA met with in a CBA discussion setting:

    Commissioner Gary Bettman and Daly were joined on the league side by owners from their executive committee, including Calgary Flames part-owner Harley Hotchkiss (chairman of the board), Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs (chairman of the finance committee), as well as Nashville Predators owner Craig Leopold, Carolina Hurricanes owner Peter Karmanos, Minnesota Wild chairman Bob Naegele and New Jersey Devils CEO and GM Lou Lamoriello.


    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094781179627_90190379?s_name=&no_ads=

    The NHL could always change the members of the committee, and I don't see why some of the more powerful teams like NYR, Toronto, and Philadelphia wouldn't want someone present to at least observe the proceedings.
     
  22. Benji Frank

    Benji Frank Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    Personally, I think a cap (luxury tax or hard) would work better with gaurenteed contracts. It would force the manager to think a little before he handed out gobs of money. He won't be able to just walk away from his winning Bobby Holik bid if it doesn't work out at season's end.... the GM would actually have to think and forecast where he's going to be if he signs someone for 3 or 4 years at 4 or 5 mill per......

    The owner's seem to be going in the right direction now. They've admitted the deals like Joe Sakic's were a mistake. They should be able to work something out with what the players are offerring if 75 cent penalty over 44 mill & 10% cut are indeed a basis for where the players are trying to get the ball rolling. Based on the 1.8 mill # for average salary of last year, this drops the average down to 1.62 mill (with the 10% cut), and lots of players are currently unsigned or in the final year of a now pro-rated contract. The owners could probably survive by countering around 38 mill which would be 10% lower then team average last year & sign a 5 year deal retroactive to 09/15/04 with the tax portion taking effect 09/15/05. If it's working as '09 approaches, great. It also gives the league 5 years to really look in the mirror and see what they gotta do to make a dent in the US market to generate revenues that even marginally compare to the other pro leagues... at least then, hopefully they'll be generating enough revenues from outside the gate receipts that they can offer significant revenue sharing and a hard cap the players could accept and find fair.
     
  23. ceber

    ceber Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wyoming, MN
    Keep in mind, the league only considered one of their 6 initial proposals to be a cap. The PA considered all 6 of them to be effective caps. I'd wager the final solution is going to be something the PA can say isn't a cap, and is something the league can say gives them cost certainty. There's enough leeway in the definitions that both sides will claim some sort of victory or another. A stiff enough luxury tax (and starting off at 75% seems pretty stiff) might be enough to get the league interested in working out the details.
     
  24. missK

    missK Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Lightning country
    Home Page:
    The 10% roll back, is it still one time, this year only? Althought the cut of money this year would be nice, what happens if a player has more than 1 year left on the contract now? What happens when the team has to quality an RFA with the automatic 10% next season? Next year the salaries are right back where they are today.

    Even a luxury tax won't help decrease the losses for next year significantly with existing contracts and the automatic 10% increase for RFA's.
     
  25. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,124
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    While I lean towards a "anti-NHLPA" type of view, I think this offer better stimulate some very strong negotiations, or the NHL is cooked IMO. Why do I say this?

    1) The 10% rollback would cut league salaries by $150M. While people say this is a one time pickup (which is true), it reduces the baseline the owners are working from. AKA: if they want to act in an sane manner (as opposed to acting insane from 1995-2003), this allows them to lower the bar on all contracts going forward.

    2) The $44M and the 75% tax are initial bargaining positions. They could very reasonably come down to the $40M & 100% figure during negotiations, which would act as a "pseudo hard cap" IMO. This would still allow teams to have payrolls in the $70M range if they wanted, but only $55M of it would go the the players and the other $15M would be distributed to teams under the salary cap.

    3) Limitations on rookie bonus contract structures and a MLB arbitration system would both be major gains on the owners ability to contain costs.


    Overall, I would look at the NHLPA's offer as a real chance for a system that could work. It's not the guarantee that Bettman is looking for, but the more I think about it, what he's looking for isn't reasonable unless you have VERY substantial revenue sharing (think 75% of the home gate).

    If Bettman doesn't budge off of his current stance, I think he's going to loose the moral high ground the owners currently have. Right now, I'm pissed as hell (and even been driven to watching NBA games!), but my anger is only a fraction of what it will be if the owners don't give this offer some serious consideration.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"