*RUMORED* NHLPA Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whakahere

Registered User
Jan 27, 2004
1,817
52
Germany
shakes said:
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.

true but if you take everything else (or close to it) and change one thing then you are bargaining. just because you were first to start the process doesn't mean that you must accept everything (i.e. tax)

I believe if the players get real on the tax like making it 75 cents on the dollar and the owners start it at 31 million (with tax money going to teams under cap) then I think we will have a cap. include share of gate income and you have a cap right there ....

you could even base the non tax money on total income of the league divided by 30 team at then remove players share.
i.e. if the total income of the league is 2,100,000,000 (that is 2.1 billion)
divide by 30 (teams)
players get 50% of that income before the tax starts which means the starting tax would be at 35 million for each team. seems fair to me.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,827
2,339
Montreal, QC, Canada
copperandblue said:
THIS is the creative alternative that took 3 months to formulate? Wow....

Sarcasm aside, there is probably be a starting point in there somewhere...

At least they took their heads out of the hole. I'm excited by this proposal. This could be big for the small and medium market teams.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
jeffbear said:
Here's my take ...


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

That's what I wonder about. The big market teams. A luxury tax means they are subsidizing the poorer teams. It could hurt the value of their franchise. Then again, it might not.
But this league is supposed to be a partnership.
You can't expect the players to fix the whole thing.
The Big market teams must step up and do their share to.

If they refuse to explore the players' offer, we'll know that this lockout is about businting the union, and nothing more.
Because there is obviously more than one route to a fiscally stronger league. And the owners don't see that.
 

crump

~ ~ (ړײ) ~ ~
Feb 26, 2004
14,744
6,498
Ontariariario
Having experienced the pain and anger during the last labour struggles in the NHL all I can say is...don't get your hopes up. Even if the Owners like the proposal from the players they are going to drain as much as they can from the players until about the middle of January.

What does this mean? It means avoid listening to the rhetoric or you will slowly go insane. Ignore all news stories or rumours until you see a puck drop. Take up a hobby, go visiting people, enjoy the extra time with family....just don't expect anything but bull&^% until they hit the point of no return (pundits think sometime around January 18 or so)

I am out of here...Happy Holidays everyone

(don't even respond to this message, stop thinking about NHL hockey right now..this message will self distruct in 5 seconds)
 

YellHockey*

Guest
txpd said:
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.

The owners will have to give in because they have no other option.

If the owners are deadset against agreeing to anything without a salary cap, the players will figure it out at some point. That's when they can decertify the PA and the owners will never be able to get a cap. How can they when they don't have a side to bargain with?

And the players would most certainly find a totally free market a lot more appealing then giving in to some arbitrary number concocted by a shady little weasel.

If the small markets want to back the owners on this, they'll be the ones who pay the price when the players take this dispute to the next logical conclusion. A free market with the Rangers and Leafs having a bigger pocketbook then anyone else. It's my nightmare but all the Alberta sycophants will have no one to blame but themselves.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
FLYLine4LIFE said:
No it isnt. The players will never agree to a hard cap.

Even if the alternative is playing in Europe for a fraction of what they would make in a hard capped NHL? Unfortunately, I think you've bought in to the NHLPA rhetoric.

If the owners could get the tax set at 100% over something like $38-40M, wouldn't that effectively be a cap? I am pro-owner, but what if that's a serious offer to start negotiations from, I think it's worth a shot.

If I was in the NHLPA, I wouldn't settle for a hard cap unless there was 100% revenue sharing of all league revenue (auditted). I don't see where it's the players sole responsibility to be the guardians for the future of the NHL. They definetely have a duty to make sure the league is healthy moving forward, and I think the proposed offer goes a long way to getting it there. The owners could operate intellegently under the proposed system and it could very well be a healthy situation.

Especially when the alternatives such as a 2 year lock out, replacement players, etc that are being thrown around would devastate the NHL IMO. Is it worth it to have a $35MM salary cap if you lose 40% of your current fanbase? I sure don't think so, but then I'm not an owner.
 
Last edited:

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,827
2,339
Montreal, QC, Canada
JWI19 said:
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.

Daly said they would accept a luxury tax "depending on what came with it." Obviously that means arbitration and free agency. The players have caved a lot tho and their rumored offer is practically a cap.

I think they'll get it done.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,827
2,339
Montreal, QC, Canada
Newsguyone said:
That's what I wonder about. The big market teams. A luxury tax means they are subsidizing the poorer teams. It could hurt the value of their franchise. Then again, it might not.
But this league is supposed to be a partnership.
You can't expect the players to fix the whole thing.
The Big market teams must step up and do their share to.

If they refuse to explore the players' offer, we'll know that this lockout is about businting the union, and nothing more.
Because there is obviously more than one route to a fiscally stronger league. And the owners don't see that.

The megarich teams are to blame for this mess in the first place. The fact that the NHLPA wants to go after them and punish them with a luxury tax is a sign of good faith.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
That's what I wonder about. The big market teams. A luxury tax means they are subsidizing the poorer teams. It could hurt the value of their franchise. Then again, it might not.
But this league is supposed to be a partnership.
You can't expect the players to fix the whole thing.
The Big market teams must step up and do their share to.

If they refuse to explore the players' offer, we'll know that this lockout is about businting the union, and nothing more.
Because there is obviously more than one route to a fiscally stronger league. And the owners don't see that.

But a luxury tax means subsidizing the small market teams only if they CHOOSE to have a salary over the cap. Other revenue share methods (like a % of the home gate) require revenue sharing on their major revenue stream. Think about what happens when the Canes visit the Leafs (or the Rangers) for a home at home. Even if both arena's sell out (not likely in CAR) I bet the average ticket price in TOR or NY is double that of CAR, which would mean a major "subsidy" for the small market team.

Can you imagine how much money the Teachers Pension would make in TOR with a hard salary cap at $35M? They made money with a payroll almost double that last year!
 

Fingolfin

Registered User
Mar 9, 2003
500
98
Costa Mesa, CA
My guess is that the NHL counters with something along the lines of:

- 75% tax on payrolls that exceed 53% of revenue.
- 100% tax on payrolls that exceed 63% of revenue.
- Arbitration reform (hi/lo style like baseball).
- Qualifying offers at 80%.
- Salary rollback at 15%.
- Some form of revenue sharing.

Then somewhere in the middle they'll hopefully agree on something.

- Fin
 

macho232

Registered User
Nov 27, 2002
369
0
Calgary
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
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.

Actually its the players fault, they went on strike forcing the owners to sign a CBA that did not work.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Fingolfin said:
My guess is that the NHL counters with something along the lines of:

- 75% tax on payrolls that exceed 53% of revenue.
- 100% tax on payrolls that exceed 63% of revenue.
- Arbitration reform (hi/lo style like baseball).
- Qualifying offers at 80%.
- Salary rollback at 15%.
- Some form of revenue sharing.

Then somewhere in the middle they'll hopefully agree on something.

- Fin

The HUGE issue you have to decide what's league revenue, which is a HUGE mess.

I think you can avoid that by having a 5 year term on the CBA and see what happens. If the league grows rapidly over the next 5 years (unlikely), the can then negotiate a new level where the luxury tax goes into affect.

I guess I don't see the need to downwardly adjust the salary levels if the league does a poor job of promoting the game.
 

Whakahere

Registered User
Jan 27, 2004
1,817
52
Germany
more I hear the more I see that Arbitration is one of the key things that is detroying the NHL.

So no Arbitration! nothing at all. if a player doesn't like what he gets paid then he can hold out ... or play in europe (like they are now)
I hate Arbitration as it drives costs up! Just remove the bloody thing.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
shakes said:
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.

Bargaining in good faith does not mean the owners have to abandon any position that they feel is essential to their business. It doesn't matter what the NHLPA offers, the owners do not have to negotiate anything that does not contain a link between revenues and salaries.

That being said, it appears that the NHLPA is finally taking things seriously. I agree that this could be a starting point to get things moving, but wouldn't be suprised if the owners did counter with a luxury tax starting at X% of revenues, and a hard cap at Y% of revenues.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Has it occurred to anyone that the NHLPA floated this new willingness to negotiate on the same day that Bettman was to sit down with his 30 GM's for a closed door meeting? (Dec 2)

My guess is that a big topic at this meeting was going to be how to manage the league without the NHLPA, set a timetable for replacements, etc. The NHLPA, anticipating this move, floated the idea they might be willing to talk in order to avoid the declaration of an impasse, but, if the meat of their proposal is a 10% reduction in salaries (a roll-back that would be gobbled up in one season as players salaries will simply continue skyrocketing) and a change in their luxury tax proposal everyone agrees is a red-herring and not a valid concern, then I suggest the league declare an impasse the instant that phoney proposal hits the table.

The NHLPA offer is bull-twang and the union knows it. The league should use it, not as a way of starting talks, but as a way of decaring this nonsense over with once and for all.
-HckyFght!
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
Beukeboom Fan said:
Even if the alternative is playing in Europe for a fraction of what they would make in a hard capped NHL? Unfortunately, I think you've bought in to the NHLPA rhetoric.

If the owners could get the tax set at 100% over something like $38-40M, wouldn't that effectively be a cap? I am pro-owner, but what if that's a serious offer to start negotiations from, I think it's worth a shot.

If I was in the NHLPA, I wouldn't settle for a hard cap unless there was 100% revenue sharing of all league revenue (auditted). I don't see where it's the players sole responsibility to be the guardians for the future of the NHL. They definetely have a duty to make sure the league is healthy moving forward, and I think the proposed offer goes a long way to getting it there. The owners could operate intellegently under the proposed system and it could very well be a healthy situation.

Especially when the alternatives such as a 2 year lock out, replacement players, etc that are being thrown around would devastate the NHL IMO. Is it worth it to have a $35MM salary cap if you lose 40% of your current fanbase? I sure don't think so, but then I'm not an owner.

I could be wrong, but revenue sharing is not a mandatory subject for collective bargaining. The owners will not want to negotiate anything to do with that.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
BlackRedGold said:
The owners will have to give in because they have no other option.

If the owners are deadset against agreeing to anything without a salary cap, the players will figure it out at some point. That's when they can decertify the PA and the owners will never be able to get a cap. How can they when they don't have a side to bargain with?

And the players would most certainly find a totally free market a lot more appealing then giving in to some arbitrary number concocted by a shady little weasel.

If the small markets want to back the owners on this, they'll be the ones who pay the price when the players take this dispute to the next logical conclusion. A free market with the Rangers and Leafs having a bigger pocketbook then anyone else. It's my nightmare but all the Alberta sycophants will have no one to blame but themselves.

i see you are looking at this situation with a clear and non prejudiced frame of reference....lol.
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
Newsguyone said:
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.

Some of the rich owners caused the problem. Others have fallen into the problem by doing everything they can to keep up without putting themselves in dire straits........althought they are quite close.

For what its worth I am not pro-Bettman, I am for the betterment of the NHL. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see the state this league is in and the drastic chances need to be made in order for the league to regain stability. Think about that before you try labelling everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
Beukeboom Fan said:
1) A 10% rollback reduces NHL salaries by $150,000,000! That's a pretty significant rollback IMO.
Yes, except its just a 1 time rollback and really means nothing as salaries will just continue to rise.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Fish on The Sand said:
Yes, except its just a 1 time rollback and really means nothing as salaries will just continue to rise.

At what point then do the owners have to be responsible for that? If they're such great businessmen then they shouldn't need collusion at that point to not pay what they've been paying.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
HckyFght said:
Replace the players, sooner the better!


You can replace them all you want. It isn't going to happen, so get off your replacement horse, it is not a viable option and Bettman won't even do it anyways.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Fish on The Sand said:
Yes, except its just a 1 time rollback and really means nothing as salaries will just continue to rise.



Owners who are making enough money should be able to spend if they can afford it. If 30 NHL owners are whining about the rise in salaries they have no one to blame but themselves.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Fish on The Sand said:
Yes, except its just a 1 time rollback and really means nothing as salaries will just continue to rise.

Why don't you tell me the winning lottery ticket number while you have your crystal ball going?

Can someone tell me what business $150M doesn't matter? This will save the Islanders $6-7M on Yashin's salary alone! I see that as a real help.

If there's a 75% (or higher due to negotiations) luxury tax, do you think that there will be the same crazy spending? If Rivet is going to be a UFA, and the Habs are over the luxury tax limit, do you think they're going to offer him $3M per year, and have his "total cost" be $5M? I sure don't think so. So a decent #4 d-man won't be making $3M. Same thing with the contracts to McCay & Czerkawsi.

I think the owners have to take responsibility for running their business well. The proposal seems awfully fair that it helps fix past mistakes the owners have made with the 10% rollback, and incents them to stay below the luxury tax limit (75% tax), and improved ability to control costs (rookie limits and potential arbitration changes).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->