*RUMORED* NHLPA Proposal

[Beukeboom Fan]

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.

Couple of points:

1) The 10% raise is only for player that are making less than the league average
2) I think you would see many more teams let marginal players become UFA's rather than give a player a 10% raise
3) This is a point that could very easily be negotiated in the final deal

 

[tantalum]

This offer is not far from a solution on the surface. If the NHLPA takes that 40-45 mil threshold and reword it to 50% of revenues and negotiate what constitutes revenues etc the deal is nearly there with a few other minor additions (probably a hard upper cap limit and minimum payroll). It just doesn't make any sense to propose the threshold but have no mechanism in place for that threshold to change with the health of the league.

Perhaps I misheard Saskin yesterday on OTR but I thought I heard him say that if the owners were to have the same revenue sharing as the NFL they would move off the no-cap statements (funny given how according to the NHLPA the NFLPA absolutely loathe the cap). Maybe I misheard it but that's what i thought I heard.

If the owners conceed to not just increased revenue sharing but a number like the 75% the NFL does do the players than accept a soft cap above which there is tax and a final upper higher cap ceiling? They'd be silly not to. And keep in mind the NHL has maintained all along they have conceeded the league needs to have more revenue sharing in the next CBA. That was the carrot they have been dangling to get the players into cost certainty. The other carrot would be increased free agency. The NHL is open to discussing that revenue sharing as part of a solution. They have never made this into players solve all the problems thing.

above all what this says is that the offer the NHLPA presented in Septmeber was indeed absolute crap and unacceptable to the owners and they knew it.

 

[shakes]

If this is indeed the NHLPA's offer and the League dismisses it outright, then bye bye impasse and bye bye all that curious public support that they were getting. If anything, an arbitrator would rule that the League is not bargaining in good faith.

 

[txpd]

If this is indeed the NHLPA's offer and the League dismisses it outright, then bye bye impasse and bye bye all that curious public support that they were getting. If anything, an arbitrator would rule that the League is not bargaining in good faith.

I am curious. Are you saying that forcing the owner's demand for a salary cap was as easy as making a decent luxury tax proposal? if that is all it took, why did the players wait so long? IMO there has to be more to it than that.

 

[HckyFght*]

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.

What in the world is so good about a 10% roll back in salaries? And they are still humping their luxury tax system which the league has already rejected. If this is the meat of their proposal, I wouldn't even bother sitting down. Replace the players, sooner the better!
-HckyFght!

 

[Bruwinz37]

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.

I am not sure exactly why you consider this a good long term proposal. It might be a good starting point, but it means nothing if the NHLPA proposes this as a final offer.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I am not sure exactly why you consider this a good long term proposal. It might be a good starting point, but it means nothing if the NHLPA proposes this as a final offer.

If the owners just dismiss this offer why should the players for further? IMO it's on the owners to counter this offer with something different from their original 6 proposals. I have do have a feeling the owners will counter this offer or else they wouldn't have agreed to meet with the union. Or i hope, cause damnit i'm missing the NHL.

 

[tantalum]

If the owners just dismiss this offer why should the players for further? IMO it's on the owners to counter this offer with something different from their original 6 proposals. I have do have a feeling the owners will counter this offer or else they wouldn't have agreed to meet with the union. Or i hope, cause damnit i'm missing the NHL.

I believe they will counter it. They'll counter it by lowering the threshold a few million and tying that threshold to a percentage of revenues, increasing the tax rate, and putting in a maximum payroll cap of $50 mil or so (or a similar amount the NHLPA will probably say would not be exceeded under their plan in all likelihood).

 

[Taranis_24]

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.

Luxury tax is not reall a concession by the players it's not money out of the players pockets but the owners pockets. The 10% roll back does really nothing but take the salaries back down to pre-2003 season (Average salary went up 16% between may 04-sep04). What I can't stand hearing is that the players are looking out for future players. Arbitration may hurt some players but not all. What kind of resentment will we see if one player is awarded his requested amount and another player not but given the owner amount. Heck there might even be some resentment between owners on this.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I believe they will counter it. They'll counter it by lowering the threshold a few million and tying that threshold to a percentage of revenues, increasing the tax rate, and putting in a maximum payroll cap of $50 mil or so (or a similar amount the NHLPA will probably say would not be exceeded under their plan in all likelihood).

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as they are talking back and forth there is light at the end of the tunnel.


Then we can just complain why it took so long.

 

[shakes]

I am curious. Are you saying that forcing the owner's demand for a salary cap was as easy as making a decent luxury tax proposal? if that is all it took, why did the players wait so long? IMO there has to be more to it than that.

Why would you want to give concessions that you might not have had to make.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Luxury tax is not reall a concession by the players it's not money out of the players pockets but the owners pockets. The 10% roll back does really nothing but take the salaries back down to pre-2003 season (Average salary went up 16% between may 04-sep04). What I can't stand hearing is that the players are looking out for future players. Arbitration may hurt some players but not all. What kind of resentment will we see if one player is awarded his requested amount and another player not but given the owner amount. Heck there might even be some resentment between owners on this.

1) A 10% rollback reduces NHL salaries by $150,000,000! That's a pretty significant rollback IMO.
2) If arbitration was an either/or proposition, I think that players would be more reasonable in their requests because if they get too agressive, the teams offer is more likely to be accepted.
3) This system should ALLOW owners to control their teams salaries. It's not guaranteed, like what Bettman is looking for, but it's a VERY large step in the right direction.
4) The rookies will also be thrown under the bus so they can't make HUGE money in incentives.

Why do I say #3)? Here's my example. Jarome Iginla is going to be a UFA. The Flames, who are below the cap, can afford to pay him $7.5MM (which is what he made last year). The Rangers want to sign JI. The salary impact for the Rangers to offer Jarome would be over $13M to pay him what CAL was offering. If they did decide to pay that, the Rangers would pay $6M for JI's contract into a pool that is distributed to teams below the salary cap.

This system would allow the small market teams to hold onto their own talent, and allow big market teams to pay a huge premium if they go over the "soft cap" limit, and these funds are paid to small market teams.

This system would incent owners to control themselves, which is very important IMO.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

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?

Let's also be clear. This is negotiation.
By demanding a salary cap at 32 M, and sticking to it, he said this: Not only do we want salary controls, we want an immediate salary reduction.
Lets look at these two factors:
1 Even if he doesn't win his cap, he's going to win a luxury tax. 75 cents on the dollar is nothing to sneeze at. Under this proposal, the WIngs would have had to pay about 23 Million in penalties to be divided among small market teams. They probably would have not made trades for Schneider and Lang in recent years, given this set up. The WIngs lost 16M last year. Add another 23 Million. That should give you some idea of whether or not the WIngs would be a little more careful.
I support a luxury tax because it's a salary drag AND it's revenue sharing between small and large market teams.

2. The players are offering a 10 percent give back.
That's substantial. I don't care who you are. Few workers in any industry have ever offered 10 percent.

I am opposed to the salary cap. I don't even really like the luxury tax.
But given the owners irresponsibility, stupidity and lack of discipline, something needs to be done to save these idiots from themselves.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I am not sure exactly why you consider this a good long term proposal. It might be a good starting point, but it means nothing if the NHLPA proposes this as a final offer.

This is a game, dude.
Nothing is final.
If all final offers were actually final, nothing would ever get done

 

[X0ssbar]

I believe they will counter it. They'll counter it by lowering the threshold a few million and tying that threshold to a percentage of revenues, increasing the tax rate, and putting in a maximum payroll cap of $50 mil or so (or a similar amount the NHLPA will probably say would not be exceeded under their plan in all likelihood).

I agree with this - the owner's will definitley counter. It would be PR suicide if they didn't.

I think the ultimate solution is gonna be a mix of a salary cap AND luxury tax system - that way both "heads" walk away winners. Something along the lines of a luxury tax kicking at 35 - 40 mil and then a hard cap (or super tax - say %200) kicking in at 50 or so mil.

If/when they ever get past this first negotiation point, I will be very interested in hearing some of the other negotiating points - namely, how will the two parties define revenue going foward. Of course they have to get through the road block before addressing any bumps in the road.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Luxury tax is not reall a concession by the players it's not money out of the players pockets but the owners pockets. The 10% roll back does really nothing but take the salaries back down to pre-2003 season (Average salary went up 16% between may 04-sep04). What I can't stand hearing is that the players are looking out for future players. Arbitration may hurt some players but not all. What kind of resentment will we see if one player is awarded his requested amount and another player not but given the owner amount. Heck there might even be some resentment between owners on this.

It's money out of the pockets of rich owners, who've caused the salary mess with ridiculous contracts.
I suppose you pro-bettman people think that everything must be solved on the backs of players.

Why don't you Bettman people hire him to found a new league of ECHLers.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

If/when they ever get past this first negotiation point, I will be very interested in hearing some of the other negotiating points - namely, how will the two parties define revenue going foward. Of course they have to get through the road block before addressing any bumps in the road.

That will get interesting, hopefully the players fight for input on rule changes and such, it's almost shameful they dont have atleast a voice in that area. I think Yzerman said uit best the other day, there are a lot of other problems with than just money that needs to addressed.

 

[SedinFan*]

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.

It slowly is happening.

 

[tantalum]

If/when they ever get past this first negotiation point, I will be very interested in hearing some of the other negotiating points - namely, how will the two parties define revenue going foward. Of course they have to get through the road block before addressing any bumps in the road.

That is a key and has to be done no matter who "wins". If it a simple luxury tax with no cap next CBA the thresholds and rates will be up for discussion. The only way you can have a proper discussion on those things is by taking into account the revenues and expenses of the league (i.e. league health). Why not build that mechanism into this CBA?

 

[tantalum]

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as they are talking back and forth there is light at the end of the tunnel.


Then we can just complain why it took so long.

Any way you cut this this a major step by the NHLPA and that has to be applauded somewhat even if it does only show the NHLPA supporters how crappy and pointless that offer in Septembet really was. I don't think it's a step that addresses what needs to be addressed and certainly not in the manner the owners want (note: OWNERS not Bettman). It's a step by the NHLPA to try to save a complete drubbing at the hands of the owners that may even stand a chance of working except for the 8 out of 30 team thing. But when all is said and done this is essentially a FIRST offer by the NHLPA (the first that takes the problems somewhat seriously) and to offer up a 75% tax above $45 mil seems a pretty desperate first offer. Whether there is a season or not remains uncertain but I'd be surprised if the NHL doesn't get some sort of maximum cap system (A joint tax/hard cap system wouldn't surprise me at all with a minimum payroll and revenue sharing as well in concession to the players).

This was never an issue of who will win...the owners already have the victory as the new CBA will be better for them than the old one. The question is do the players get any sort of "victory"?

 

[jeffbear]

Here's my take ...

1. The 10% rollback is a good start, but it only gets player costs as a percentage of revenues down to 62%, when I feel like the owners want to be guaranteed that the percentage will be down to around 50% in relative short order. That's where I think these negotiations will likely break down.

2. The PA seems to think that the right luxury tax can accomplish salary creep control and revenue sharing in the same swoop ... but I'm not sold that it will be that easy. In fact, I don't think that the big marlet teams will go for it at all ... which is why the league has been so unclear about their revenue sharing proposals.

3. I don't think the owners will budge on the tie-in between revenues and salaries, whether it's in cap form or not ... and I don't think this proposal really goes any further towards that end, and we all know the PA is going to puke on their shoes the second the subject comes up.

Bottom line ... nice to see 'em back at the table, but this won't save the season.

 

[Whakahere]

If I were the owners I would counter that by:

1) 10% roll back on all current salary (doesn't matter length of contract)
2) 31 million then tax at 75 cents on the dollar 50 million cap.
3) Share profits 60 (home team) 40 away team. - gate income
4) new rookie contracts top at 850k (max bonus at 500k first year, 850k 2nd year 1 million 3rd).
5) max salary 7 million for 1 year (based on league income).

of course the NHLPA would counter that (then we might get somewhere.

Oh, just so you know ... if you rolled the salary back 10% ... wouldn't that really be just 5% because half of the season is gone??? so really the NHLPA is offering nothing new here!

 

[txpd]

I think that most of you that are saying that this nhlpa proposal is the basis for a deal and/or it forces the owners to negotiate with this as the starting point are living in a dream world. Not many of you are willing to answer the hard question, why would the owners so easily give up the one thing they say they must have(the salary cap)?? those that do only answer from the players prospective and admit to being against any salary cap anyway.

so...lets go back to square one. why would the owners cave in on the one thing they say they need??? I say they won't. Not first thing for damn sure. If I were on the owners executive committee, I would counter offer the players proposal with a similar proposal based on a revenue to payroll percentage that comes to about $38m. agree with everything except the luxury tax and replace it with the salary cap.

i bet the nhlpa runs from that as fast as they can carry themselves.

 

[shakes]

I think that most of you that are saying that this nhlpa proposal is the basis for a deal and/or it forces the owners to negotiate with this as the starting point are living in a dream world. Not many of you are willing to answer the hard question, why would the owners so easily give up the one thing they say they must have(the salary cap)?? those that do only answer from the players prospective and admit to being against any salary cap anyway.

so...lets go back to square one. why would the owners cave in on the one thing they say they need??? I say they won't. Not first thing for damn sure. If I were on the owners executive committee, I would counter offer the players proposal with a similar proposal based on a revenue to payroll percentage that comes to about $38m. agree with everything except the luxury tax and replace it with the salary cap.

i bet the nhlpa runs from that as fast as they can carry themselves.

Because there is no way an arbitrator would find that the League bargained in good faith. Bargaining is not just This is our only offer. take it or leave it.

 

[FLYLine27*]

It slowly is happening.

No it isnt. The players will never agree to a hard cap.