The NHLPA CBA proposal....

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by TehDoak, Dec 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TehDoak

    TehDoak He sure has a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    24,498
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Big Head
    The NHL is going to have a hard time turning it down:

    #1. 24% Total Salary Rollback.
    #2. Drastic Change in Qualifying Offer System:
    -A 100% Qualifying offer is still needed to keep a players rights, but instead of it being at average, it is at 1.0 million. This is huge. The guaranteed 10% raise was killing alot of teams every season.
    -The team also has the ability to, once in a players career, force a player to go to arbitration and suggest that they are making way too much money and try and get a salary rollback.
    #3. A more advanced revenue sharing system where the top 10 teams each contribute a 'share' to go to the lower revenue teams who sell at least 80% of the seats.
    #4. A DRASTIC cutback in the entry level salary. Down from 1.2 million to .85 million and the max signing bonus down to .212 million.
    #5. Payroll taxes: with the 24% rollback, only 3 NHL teams have salaries over 45 million. The tax increases steadily over the next 3 seasons:

    04-05: 45 million 20%, 50 million 50%, 60 million 60%
    05-06: 45 million 25%, 50 million 55%, 60 million 65%
    06-07: 45 million 30%, 50 million 60%, 60 million 70%

    The tax in put into a 'discretionary fund' which is controlled by both the NHL and NHLPA.

    #6. A joint NHLPA/NHL group which looks into jointly beneficial things, such as the quality of the game and its marketing, etc.

    After looking through the majority of the NHLPA proposal, my only major questions come from revenue sharing, it isn't exactly clear what their plan is here. Another interesting thing here: NO mention of moving back the UFA age from 31. Overall, all give from the players, no real demands, except they be given a say in marketing and new rule changes. After looking it over, very impressed at the players union concessions. Looks like we're gonna have a hockey season kids
     
  2. Hire Sather

    Hire Sather Don't punt seasons

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    28,468
    Likes Received:
    803
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I'm confident in the fact that this is a good begining to the new era of the NHL.

    The building blocks have been set, and I'm also confident in the fact that the rest will be built next week.
     
  3. Son of Steinbrenner

    Son of Steinbrenner Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    10,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the owners should take this offer and run. i bet the owners didn't expect this offer to be this good.
     
  4. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    man what a deal!!!! I was pro owners but not anymore...there will be hockey this season no way the owners can turn this proposal down are you kidding me.
     
  5. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,752
    Likes Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    This'll probably be a lot easier for them to turn down than you think, due mostly to a pretty weak luxury tax.
     
  6. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    are you crazy!!! let's say you have a business and your employees offer you a 24% salary reduction you wouldn't take it c'mon
     
  7. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Regina
    The luxury tax is a joke and still leaves teh door open for spending. Why do you thing Goodenow doesn't want a hard cap, a stiff luxury tax, or cost-certainty. Well without those, it leaves the door open for the players salaries to get back to where they were before the roll-back. Institute any of these, and this will not happen.

    Although I do think that NHLPA did put up a proposal to bargain from. Which is good enough for me.
     
  8. Riggins

    Riggins Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    A lot of you are getting fooled by that one time 24% rollback.

    The 20 cent tax on 45 million is absurd. That won't prevent anything.
     
  9. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    the hell with hard cap!! it's the job of the gm to manage to set his own cap...not the players. with this deal ther's no way a team shouldn't be able to be competitive and make a profit
     
  10. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,752
    Likes Received:
    666
    Trophy Points:
    225
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    If salaries go back up 40% in the next 3 years, what good does it do?
     
  11. ZombieMatt

    ZombieMatt Registered User

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect that the owners are going to counter with a luxury tax next week that is closer to 45 cents on 40 million dollars.

    Overall, this is an EXTREMELY good start to getting talks underway once again.
     
  12. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    For all you poor pro-owner people:

    Please list one thing that the owners have conceeded.

    Until then, you cannot complain about ANY concessions on the players part (and in fact there are plenty).

    The luxury tax number will be adjusted, for sure, but come on. Wake up and face reality. Thank God I was never a pro-owner, it just isn't logical!


    The players have helped out the owners in TONS of ways, without asking much in return, just to retain the extremely logical market conditions that are still underlying. Dont prevent an owner from keeping a guy they grow and develop if they are willing to pay them the market rate. Dont force the owner and player to part ways because of an idiotic artificial barrier created to help the poorly managed and mediocre teams.

    :teach:
     
  13. dem

    dem Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    156
    That tax is way off from the 75% we've been hearing.

    Quite frankly this isnt even close to enough imo...
    Rollback is stupid
     
  14. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    I agree, that luxury tax has to get A LOT stiffer.

    I am also pro-owner but I will give the NHLPA credit, this a solid offer to finally get these negotiations rolling.

    *A small detail in their proposal, but I really like the NHLPA's point that they want to be involved in the marketing and quality of the sport. I think they are finally realizing that it benefits all involved to work together to grow this game - instead of against each other.
     
  15. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    with the players proposal there's no way salary will go up by 40%. now gm have a lot of tools to work with to manage their team and keep salaries from going of the chart.
     
  16. People need to understand once current contracts run out after the 24% deflator as Goodenow calls it, your back in the same situation in another 5-10 years, and thats not the right way to fix this problem. You have to have a assurance that there is a system in place that will keep things running smooth.

    This deal will not be rejected, but will not be accepted. I will still suppour the NHL 100% if they reject this stupid offer. I read it over in NHLPA.COM and this **** is weak. 1.608 million created from tax money under current contracts after the 24% deflator. Theres 235 pages I will not read all of it, but this has some components that sound good and some that just outright disrespectful. .20 on 45 million will not cause teams to be scared, .60 on 60 million is just ouright nasty.

    Trade the 24% deflator to 15%, and UFA to age 29 in exchange for a soft cap with linkage. Harder tax rates, that start at dollar for dollar.

    This proposal just goes to show us there will be no NHL for a very very long time.
     
  17. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Regina
    The system has caused the problems. Owners in one market do things that suit their teams but affect others through arbitration, negotiations, and qualifying offers. The rolled back salaries put through this system again will climb back up within two to three years. The roll back is a good start, but it will not prevent salaries staying down. There is a reason the owners would give the whole roll-back back to the players in turn for the proper systemic fix. That is because the proper systemic fixes will provide way more stability then any one-time roll back ever could.
     
  18. Ismellofhockey

    Ismellofhockey Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    That is significant and much more satisfactory, it not only gives big market teams time to adjust it also creates a 30%, 60%, 70% threshold which is a good starting base for negotiations.
    Of course it's still much too low but that can be altered.

    The adjustment of the qualifying offer is a very good step forward.

    If all this is true, then there is definitely something to work with here.
     
  19. Iceman23

    Iceman23 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The owners have conceded plenty. As in billions of dollars to the players in salary over the last decade. Some of the owners may not be the most likeable people, but the fact remains that the owners are putting up the money to run these teams and thus deserve to have a reasonable return on their money. The "luxury tax" given in the proposal is a start no doubt. But this 24% one time rollback is essentially useless. Next year, everyone still under contract has their salary jump right back to where it was (or higher). Unless the rollback included future years in preexisting contracts, they'd be giving the owners a chance to be profitable in the first year of the CBA. The owners have to do this right, or salaries will continue to escalate.
     
  20. MarkZackKarl

    MarkZackKarl Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Home Page:
    lol

    This post shows us that you still do not understand the situation, and never have.
     
  21. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    I think this is a good offer by the PA, with only one two problems: brutal luxury tax and the rollback. The 24% rollback sounds good, but without an adaquet luxury tax nothing is preventing the players from making that back in the next few years. If the players scrapped the idea of a rollback and just put all those "concessions" into a stiff luxury tax this thing would be solved very quickly.
     
  22. SPARTAKUS*

    SPARTAKUS* Guest

    rollback stupid!!!! would you take a 24% cut. let's see if a players makes 5M/season for 3 years = that's 3.6M. nowhe's contract is worth 11.4M
     
  23. NJD Jester

    NJD Jester Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    DC
    Home Page:
    Yeah, besides decades of monster salaries compared to little revenue, an agent-friendly arbitration system and guarenteed contracts, the owners really haven't given the players anything, have they?

    <JESTER>
     
  24. VernonForrest

    VernonForrest Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    Plymouth
    Home Page:
    I think its a good start, but if I were the owners I would propose a 100% tax past 40 million and a 200% tax past 50 million. This would be a pretty strict tax but it sure would beat the hard cap the owners really want.
     
  25. dem

    dem Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    156
    The problem is they'll take their 24% cut on this contract.. and then in 3 years when their contract is up they'll be asking for 5 million again.

    Its nothing but a bandaid
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"