The bible of pro hockey has confirmed NHLPA has an offer for next week....

[PecaFan]

Why would they do that? You really dont think the players care about the game at all? Hockey is there lives and you would have to think that they are smarter and have better motives than simply looking to find a scapegoat so that they can sit around forever and say "we made a proposal , its not our fault."

Of course they don't care about the game. All they care about is preventing their salaries from going down.

When the owners tried to improve the game by reducing goalie pad widths back to what they were in the past, what was the reaction of these "caring" players? That's right, a grievance filed to block it.

This entire thing is about money. On both sides.

 

[Morbo]

Why would they do that? You really dont think the players care about the game at all? Hockey is there lives and you would have to think that they are smarter and have better motives than simply looking to find a scapegoat so that they can sit around forever and say "we made a proposal , its not our fault."

These guys want to play hockey and they deserve a fair share of NHL revenue. Maybe that share is too high right now but to place such a high percentage of the blame on players right now is ignorant and absurd.

The NHL is the group that has failed to manage its business smartly and therefore they are the ones who should be working harder to find a creative solution that works for everyone instead of just trying to find a way to somehow win a PR battle and guarentee themselves of profits.

It's about the players avoiding a strict relationship between player salaries and revenues, and also looking forward to legalities over an impasse in the future (possibly). I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying it. Maybe a cap is warranted, maybe not...but the fact is, they don't want one.

I would be shocked, to put it mildly, if we hear sometime next week that this new proposal contains a cap satisfactory to Bettman. The players would be capitulating completely, which IMO is the only way there will be hockey this season. Does this seem likely to you?

It will probably contain some soft cap/luxury tax thing, and Bettman will reject it because, of course, it won't address the issue of guaranteeing cost certainty.

 

[Donnie D]

A few random thoughts.

1. The owners have no intention of killing the union. The owners need a union more than the players. Without one they would have to negotiate pensions, health care, etc. with every single player. It is the CBA that allows the league to have a draft, postpone free agency and every other labor item that would be thrown out by the courts without a CBA.

2. Forget this concept of lowered ticket prices. Under any system the goal will be to maximize revenues. The concept of the cap is that the revenues will be shared. There is no concept of lowering revenues. Even in the NFL, the system with the hard cap, the league ticket prices continue to go up and the league looks for every opportunity to harvest new revenues - such as their own network that may soon get its own Thursday night game.

3. My guess is that the union's offer is nothing more than preserving its ability to show that it is trying to find a settlement, but that it's only a pr move. Look for talks to end in about 2 hours with the union calling a press conference to blast management's unwillingness to negotiate.

4. The owners have no incentive to come to a quick decision. Every day this goes on the owners lose less money than they do under the current system and the players lose money that they will never, ever recover.

5. Replacement players? I don't think so. The only league that ever won with replacement players was the NFL. Why? Because they used players that were never going to have to play with or against the regular players. When baseball used replacement players for spring training, they ended up with old farts that were out of the came and career minor league players. The top prospects in the minors weren't used because when the thing was settled, they all had to play together and management didn't want to set up permanent infighting like they ended up when they used replacement umpires. Can you imagine in a violent sport like hockey what would happen to a replacement player when the players came back?

 

[hockeytown9321]

5. Replacement players? I don't think so. The only league that ever won with replacement players was the NFL. Why? ?

If you look at the NFL's 1987 attendance, I don't think you'd think the "won"

of course those numbers are ignored by the delusional NHL fan who thinks the average guy walking down Peachtree street in Atlanta hates the NHLPA with a passion and will pay more to see replacement players just to prove it.

 

[Donnie D]

If you look at the NFL's 1987 attendance, I don't think you'd think the "won"

Attendance had nothing to do with it. The fact that only 1/2 as many people came to a replacement game isn't relevant. The owners won because management got the CBA they wanted. The union caved.

 

[thinkwild]

And the NFLPA have been considered the weakest of unions ever since. With the highest revenues in pro sports, they are the lowest piad athletes, but have the highest paid tv announcers.


I totally agree with you Donnie D. The players are as willing to lose out on those revenues, they will never recover, for the cause, as are the owners. Not until we start a 3rd year of this will there even be a start to bending.

Saskin is suggesting that it will be a significant offer that can lead to a deal. The union seems in a tough position. Everything in Bettmans strategy seems to suggest that he has no intention of entering into negotiations until the union accepts the sacred linking words. Until they concede this point that baseball and hockey will fight to the death over, the negotiations cant start. This doesnt provide a great environment for an offer with significant concessions. How can goodenow make this proposal with an eye to anything other than the larger, multi year process Bettman seems to destined to carry through?

It will be interesting to see if there is any conceptual breakthrough. Im hoping for an RFA salary cap. Guess we'll see.

 

[old kummelweck]

One of the first articles to suggest that the PA had a new deal was from Philly.com. What I found most interesting about the article was the suggestion that not only was a proposal coming from the PA, but the NHL knew what was in it and were preparing their own counter-proposal.

So this will be the crux of the meeting IMO. They will focus on NHL changes to the union proposal.

Hockey by xmas.

 

[DeleteThisAccount]

I can't believe how closed mined most of you are and are already disregarding the proposal before knowing what it actually consists of. This is more evidence of how the owners have brainwashed the average fan with the theory:

Lower salaries = lower ticket prices for you

Not disregarding it as bad, necessarily. Merely disregarding it as unacceptable to the owners. The owners want a cap/cost certainty/whatever to limit spending on players, and they want it bad. That probably means that any proposal without any such clause would get sent straight to the reject bin.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

I'm sorry but I live in what the NHL considers a small market (south FL) and I can tell you that except for my friends that are die-hard hockey fans, not many even notice that hockey isn't being played now. I'd say this attitude isn't all that unfamiliar in other American markets. I'll quote a piece of an article written in the local paper down here a month ago:

It would be one thing if this sport could survive a one- or two-year lockout.

But nobody cares. OK, few care, but could the Panthers in particular be more irrelevant in this market right now? And the Dolphins aren't even winning!

"I think the owners are taking a big chance if they're willing to scrap a full season and maybe even another," McLennan said. "As players we want to work to find solutions. The owners aren't willing to negotiate. It's too bad that it all comes down to two words -- salary cap -- because there are so many more issues than cap or no cap."

Goodenow has sold his membership that the union's proposal -- a 5 percent rollback on salaries plus other concessions -- was a meaningful offer when it did nothing to address long-term economic survival.

But negotiating is a two-way street, and the owners, who are to blame for the league's economic problems, must prove to the fans, who have shelled out for so long, that they genuinely are trying to save the season.

Owners are banking on players giving up, and maybe they will. But a few players speaking out doesn't signal the busting of the union.

I'm sure up in Canada things are very different. But in this market, with or without hockey, the fans just don't care who wins the PR battle. I think the owners should be careful though with this PR campaign though...if you work too hard making the players look bad and both sides compromise, the fans might not want to come out to watch the players. I don't know about anyone else but I don't buy tickets to watch the rich fat owners sitting in their luxury boxes sipping champagne and eating caviar. Maybe its just me but I like seeing the superstar players regardless of who they play for and for how much...I just want an entertaining game but I haven't seen one on the ice in many, many yrs.

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...07,0,1728530.column?coll=sfla-sports-panthers

 

[old kummelweck]

I'm sorry but I live in what the NHL considers a small market (south FL) and I can tell you that except for my friends that are die-hard hockey fans, not many even notice that hockey isn't being played now. I'd say this attitude isn't all that unfamiliar in other American markets. [/url]

We're dying here in Boston...

 

[speeds]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/12/02/761383-cp.html

The last offer Sept. 9 had a luxury tax kicking in at 20 cents on the dollar for payrolls over $40 million US. The new luxury tax offer, some believe, will be set at 75 cents on the dollar, also on a $40-million payroll.

We'll see if that turns out to be true.

But, if they couple that with a reduced QO and tweaks to the rookie cap and arb system, there is no one one could reasonably say that isn't AT THE VERY LEAST a starting point.

Should the union make an offer like that, and the league reject it, I find it hard to believe they'd be able to legally win an impasse in the future. Then again, I'm no lawyer, lol.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

.75 on a dollar is not meanigful, this is a terrible proposal if true. Tie the revenues to salaries for a soft cap like the NBA and then negotiate a luxury tax. NHLPA just dosent get it.

 

[tantalum]

.75 on a dollar is not meanigful, this is a terrible proposal if true. Tie the revenues to salaries for a soft cap like the NBA and then negotiate a luxury tax. NHLPA just dosent get it.

It is terrible as there is no mechanism for the thresholds to change with the league health (the whole point of tying things to revenues). If the $40 mil threshold is 55% of revenues (or whatever) say that the tax starts at a value that is 55% of league revenues divided by 30 teams. That gets things going.

I still don't think 0.75 tax is quite good enough but it's obvious that with this proposal the players think they best they are going to do is a dollar for dollar tax above $40 mil and along and even further that there will be some upper limit that cannot be exceeded. This is nearly a 400% increase in tax rate from their last offer which to me may say a couple of things: 1) the players are starting to crack. To change the offer this significantly is big, give them credit, but there is a reason and it isn't for the fans. It's because around Christmas time Bettman is going to drop a lump of coal in the players stockings...no season (= no paycheques = lost wages for a year never to be gained back). and 2) the players with this big increase in tax rate and further changes to entry level systems and srbitration know that the last offer they gave the league was complete crap just like the league said.

Will it get the ball rolling. It might. If the NHLPA will go the final step of tying that lower threshold to revenues (i.e. a different kind of soft cap than the NBA) and say $50 mil hard cap (dollar for dollar tax to $45 mil and 1.5-2 dollar to $50 mil) and a minimum payroll of say $32 mil (teams below this amount take the money not spent and divide up evenly on their roster at the end of the year). Teams consistently under or over the caps get fined with loss of picks. Truth be told tying the thresholds to revenue results in virtually the same offer the players have provided except it has the mechanism in place to reflect the health of the league which is the most important part that this agreement needs.

 

[GKJ]

This is nothing than a PR stunt by the PA... theres no Cap invoved in the proposal so its a non-starter.

When the NHL rejects this the PA will be hooting and hollering "but we tried to negotiate... we tried to come to the table"...

Ya, with a NON STARTER that the NHL have said will NOT solve anything.

Break the PA. Bring in a cap. And Lets get hockey back.

Before you start making accusations, let's remember that the PA is at least willing to talk. As Bettman says:

"I'm pleased that the union has finally decided that it makes sense to go back to the negotiating table, but beyond that, let's see what it looks like before we speculate or attempt to draw any conclusions," he told a media throng on the sidewalks outside a posh Italian restaurant in Manhattan.

It's more than what the owners are doing.

 

[JFPIV]

I can't believe how closed mined most of you are and are already disregarding the proposal before knowing what it actually consists of. This is more evidence of how the owners have brainwashed the average fan with the theory:

Lower salaries = lower ticket prices for you

If we're closed minded, you're naive.

Lower salaries means more $ in ownership pockets, not yours or mine.

 

[Pepper]

One of the biggest myths around is that NHL winning this battle will mean lower ticket prices.

That's not true, not automatically atleast.

Owners are trying to maximize revenues - by gauging the price/demand curves.

Their magic formula is number of attendants x the money they spend (tickets, parking, concessions etc). They will optimize that formula so that it delivers the highest revenue. Costs don't affect that formula, not directly atleast (though increased spending will increase demand, the correlation just aint 1:1).

Some owners might want louder building (i.e. more fans) to improve the on-ice performance but again the costs don't directly affect that.

Better managed teams will win anyway, they will be more competitive thus most likely increasing the demand for the tickets which in turn affects the revenue. Vice-versa for poorly managed teams.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/12/02/761383-cp.html

The last offer Sept. 9 had a luxury tax kicking in at 20 cents on the dollar for payrolls over $40 million US. The new luxury tax offer, some believe, will be set at 75 cents on the dollar, also on a $40-million payroll.

We'll see if that turns out to be true.

But, if they couple that with a reduced QO and tweaks to the rookie cap and arb system, there is no one one could reasonably say that isn't AT THE VERY LEAST a starting point.

Should the union make an offer like that, and the league reject it, I find it hard to believe they'd be able to legally win an impasse in the future. Then again, I'm no lawyer, lol.

I know the pro owners dont think it's enough but that a HUGE concession. Lets look at the MLB luxury tax were they are taxed 20 cents on every dollar over 120 million. (rough est)

Lets say every teams payrolls were the same as last year, the total tax penalty would break down like this.

Anaheim 10.80 million
Boston 4.35 million
Colorado 15.68 million
Dallas 20.70 million
Detroit 28.35 million
Los Angeles 4.58 million
Montreal 2.03 million
New Jersey 6.08 million
NY Islanders 2.85 million
NY Ranger 27.75 million
Philadelphia 18.83 million
St Louis 15.90 million
Toronto 16.35 million
Washington 8.33 million

For the grand total tax revenue 182.58 Million dollars. The next question is how do you split it?


p.s. i got my team payrolls from this site.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Your numbers work out to be 6.086 million for each team if split equally my guess is the tax is divided to teams who are under the cap meaning that 16 teams should get it because that is fair so that works out to be 11.41125 million per a team split equally. What to say that all these teams will spend at will and cause these large payouts every year, so there is still no gaurntee for teams not operatin at looses. THats where a revenue sharing system kicks in which is done equally and it will help teams break even and make money. I think the NBA style soft cap is perfect linking revenues to expenses, and also not a hard cap and a stiff tax.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Attendance had nothing to do with it. The fact that only 1/2 as many people came to a replacement game isn't relevant. The owners won because management got the CBA they wanted. The union caved.

They didn't get a cap out of that strike. That came in 1993.

You are right though, football reovered. My point about attendance is that if football being the most popular sport in the country only drew half or less for replacment players, I don't think the NHL can do even a third. The majirty of American sports fans don't even know there's a lockout. They already have significant problems generating revenue. Those problems would be worsened big time. So evenif they get the CBA they want, its going to be ultra useless if the league can;t make any money.

 

[txomisc]

They didn't get a cap out of that strike. That came in 1993.

You are right though, football reovered. My point about attendance is that if football being the most popular sport in the country only drew half or less for replacment players, I don't think the NHL can do even a third. The majirty of American sports fans don't even know there's a lockout. They already have significant problems generating revenue. Those problems would be worsened big time. So evenif they get the CBA they want, its going to be ultra useless if the league can;t make any money.

who cares if the majority of american sports fans know theres a lockout...this is about HOCKEY fans....i think youd be pretty hardpressed to find a HOCKEY fan who doesnt know theres a lockout. I mean come on anyone who doesnt know theres a lockout wouldnt be going to games right now anyway

 

[hockeytown9321]

who cares if the majority of american sports fans know theres a lockout...this is about HOCKEY fans....i think youd be pretty hardpressed to find a HOCKEY fan who doesnt know theres a lockout. I mean come on anyone who doesnt know theres a lockout wouldnt be going to games right now anyway

But isn't it obvious at this point that the NHL cannot survive in alot of the markets they're in? the league needs casual fans to grow. At the same time, how many loyal hockey fans, regardless of who they blame, are going to boycott under any circumstance for a few years, just like baseball in 95.

 

[Larry Melnyk]

who cares if the majority of american sports fans know theres a lockout...this is about HOCKEY fans....i think youd be pretty hardpressed to find a HOCKEY fan who doesnt know theres a lockout. I mean come on anyone who doesnt know theres a lockout wouldnt be going to games right now anyway

IMO, this has NOTHING to do about HOCKEY FANS. This is purely about getting the biggest slice of the pie possible---on the account of BOTH sides... From everything I have read here and in other forums, a good majority of the Canadian hockey fans will come back to watch anything the owners put back on the ice...Both the owners and players know that and neither really has to be concerned about the opinions of these hockey fans..ANd it's obvious by their actions that neither side feels the need to rush to an agreement to please this fan base...However, what I think is more crucial in this entire thing is the eventual viability and GROWTH of a withering and nearly dead (both financially and artisitcally) game and mostly in the United States...ANd for that, the American sports fan is more important then the hockey fans...Unfortuantely, right now it is that American sports fan that doesn't even know or care (including many HOCKEY fans) if there is a lockout. ANd if they do, following the the principle of "outta sight outta mind" and due to the myriad of alternatives, the longer this goes on the better the chance that even they couldn't give a flying fudge at rolling doughnut whether it comesback or not....The NHL and the PA have to strike a deal...

 

[Go Flames Go*]

After thinking about it, a luxury tax is not meaningful, and will not help at all. The hard cap is needed. The NHLPA should instead of putting together a proposal of luxury taxes try to negotiate a larger % of revenues, possibly 56-59% of revenues to players. A escrow should be put in place also, at the end of the year the NHLPA can audit the NHL books and if the NHL teams are spending less then the 56% league wide then the escrow is given to players.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

After thinking about it, a luxury tax is not meaningful, and will not help at all. The hard cap is needed. The NHLPA should instead of putting together a proposal of luxury taxes try to negotiate a larger % of revenues, possibly 56-59% of revenues to players. A escrow should be put in place also, at the end of the year the NHLPA can audit the NHL books and if the NHL teams are spending less then the 56% league wide then the escrow is given to players.

I don't see how a 75% tax wouldn't help.

A team over the cap has to almost pay double the salary for everything over a reasonable limit? If Iginla is a UFA, the Rangers or Av's would have to pay over $13M to match a $7.5M from the Flames (assuming they are under the luxury tax threshhold).

I believe this would be a big enough deterent that the big market teams might have a "real" payroll of $45-50M. Every team in that range would be contributing approx $10M to the kitty that the teams under the cap then get to split up. The luxury tax would incent many teams to stay below the cap because most owners aren't going to want to subsidize their competitors. Add in that the $44M & 75% are starting points in a negotiations, and they still could be reduced ($38M & 100% would be good IMO).

I think that fans have to face reality:
1) The NHL is going to suffer irrepairable damage if they refuse to negoatiate and hold fast on their hard cap in the $31-35M range.
2) Why should the players agree to a CBA where they are bearing the entire burden? Their offer addresses many of the issues the owners have killed themselves with, and the remaining fixes (arbitration, contract buy-out percentage) can still be negotiated in.

Tell me why you don't think a 75% tax would help.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I don't see how a 75% tax wouldn't help.

A team over the cap has to almost pay double the salary for everything over a reasonable limit? If Iginla is a UFA, the Rangers or Av's would have to pay over $13M to match a $7.5M from the Flames (assuming they are under the luxury tax threshhold).

I believe this would be a big enough deterent that the big market teams might have a "real" payroll of $45-50M. Every team in that range would be contributing approx $10M to the kitty that the teams under the cap then get to split up. The luxury tax would incent many teams to stay below the cap because most owners aren't going to want to subsidize their competitors. Add in that the $44M & 75% are starting points in a negotiations, and they still could be reduced ($38M & 100% would be good IMO).

I think that fans have to face reality:
1) The NHL is going to suffer irrepairable damage if they refuse to negoatiate and hold fast on their hard cap in the $31-35M range.
2) Why should the players agree to a CBA where they are bearing the entire burden? Their offer addresses many of the issues the owners have killed themselves with, and the remaining fixes (arbitration, contract buy-out percentage) can still be negotiated in.

Tell me why you don't think a 75% tax would help.

I can tell you for a fact the Red Wings payroll would not exceed $52 million under a $40 million, 100% tax.