The NHLPA CBA proposal....

[xander]

wow, I've got to say I'm pretty disapointed with this offer. I got my hopes up after hearing all the rumors of a 70% tax over 40 million, but this is a joke. I could care less about the 24% rollback, the goal of these negotiations has always been to ensure the longterm financial stability of the game, and a huge rollback coubled with a joke of a tax doesn't do that. Being impressed by the rollback is like getting excited over shiny objects.

for the recond I'm not pro owner. Ideally I'd like to see an NBA style soft cap, but I could definatly live with a luxery tax system, as long as it has some teath. This offer has no teath, Any luxery tax has to start at 70% and go from there.

 

[Doc Hollywood]

because it doesn't work you can have a 100M payroll it doesn't garantee you'll make the playoffs. The Flyers, the Rangers, the Leafs have all big payrolls but no Stanley Cup. The beautiful thing about hockey is that it's truly a team sport. From now on gms will be a lot more caruful about how they spend their money.

This Tax is weak like everyone knows. I like the proposal though. As I previously posted, modifications will be made to the luxury tax. No question about it. The Luxury tax will be alot stiffer. It is all part of negotiations.

 

[Peter]

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.

I think this point has already been raised but I raise it again. The 24% roll back is meant to be nothing more than a stake to be wedged between the owners and Bettman. The players know with certainly, unlike last lockout, that Bettman has the owners squarely behind him and his hard cap. So what better way to rock the boat than promise the owners loads of up front money (like expansion monies helped the owners to convince Bettman to extend the past CBA).

The bottom line is, even with the luxury tax (notice the money does not get distributed to lower salaried teams??) , even with the rollbacks, even with the minute changes in arbitration...the bottom line is...the New York Rangers can afford and will afford to buy a player that Calgary can't. The Detroit Red Wings will be able to offer a stupid contract to a great player to prevent them from signing with the Oilers. This CBA proposal has not addressed the real concern with the CBA - the teams will still be on uneven grounds when competing for players.

 

[Kid Canada]

because it doesn't work you can have a 100M payroll it doesn't garantee you'll make the playoffs. The Flyers, the Rangers, the Leafs have all big payrolls but no Stanley Cup. The beautiful thing about hockey is that it's truly a team sport. From now on gms will be a lot more caruful about how they spend their money.

Have they learned? No. Basically by these teams such as the Rangers (before they dumped everyone) is that they'd spend, spend and spend more, driving up the average salary, driving up salaries all around the league, making it hard for the small market teams to compete.

It wasn't just the Rangers.

 

[rt]

#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.

I thought that money was supposed to go to teams with the lower payrolls? What the hell is a 'discretionary fund', and what does it do to ensure 'long-term financial stability'?

 

[Kid Canada]

Anyone else read the proposal?

I just completed it, and it's all about 1 time roll backs, even though Goodenhow tries to make it sound as if that isn't the case. Either way, it's definitely interesting to read to say the least.

I recommend reading it. I can now fully understand why the NHL and the owners did not accept this deal.

 

[Seachd]

I recommend reading it. I can now fully understand why the NHL and the owners did not accept this deal.

We haven't heard if they'll accept it or not. We assume they won't.

 

[Doc Hollywood]

Anyone else read the proposal?

I just completed it, and it's all about 1 time roll backs, even though Goodenhow tries to make it sound as if that isn't the case. Either way, it's definitely interesting to read to say the least.

I recommend reading it. I can now fully understand why the NHL and the owners did not accept this deal.

What the Owners will do is counter with their proposal. They didn't flat out reject the proposal.

 

[MS]

Anyone else read the proposal?

I just completed it, and it's all about 1 time roll backs, even though Goodenhow tries to make it sound as if that isn't the case. Either way, it's definitely interesting to read to say the least.

I recommend reading it. I can now fully understand why the NHL and the owners did not accept this deal.

Of course they didn't accept it. That's not how negotiating works. Both sides knew before the meeting that it wouldn't be accepted. If negotiations are on a good track now, the NHL will counter-propose, then the NHLPA will re-counterpropose, and so on until they get close enough that they can get everything sorted out in one marathon bargaining session. Hopefully.

 

[Peter]

Anyone else read the proposal?

I just completed it, and it's all about 1 time roll backs, even though Goodenhow tries to make it sound as if that isn't the case. Either way, it's definitely interesting to read to say the least.

I recommend reading it. I can now fully understand why the NHL and the owners did not accept this deal.

I went through the whole thing and found a few odd and interesting things.

1) Money for luxury tax won't necessarily go to lower salaried teams.

2) Under the proposed Revenue sharing plan (which is based upon a plan the league gave to the players) the Canucks would have to contribute 2 million dollars (based upon current contracts) while the Capitals would recieve 6.7 million.

3) There are no maximums given for Individual Bonuses "C": which are the bonuses that agents used to circumnavigate the supposed salary cap on entry level contracts. This is going to have to change.

4) The luxury tax actually increases as each year goes by on the life of the CBA. This is worth noting. Towards the end of the life of the CBA the tax does get up to 75% for teams who spend over $60 million dollars.

5) The rollback is not only a one time hit...it is on the life of all current contracts. Under this plan the Canucks save well over 20 million dollars in current salary for the first three years of the CBA.

6) When it comes to arbitration and contract renegotiations only the rolled back salaries will be able to be used as comparisions.

7) Under this proposal there will be no more 10 million dollar players.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

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.

the Leafs, Rangers, Stars, Red Wings, Avalanche, ... you get the point WOULD definitely take this offer and run. I'm sure there are 15-20 teams that would definitely not want this deal. The 24% roll badk would put the big spenders back into a postiong of buying every decent player on the block without a tax in place to dissuade them from doing so. It is a start, but not quite the big breakthrough that it is being made out to be.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

the Leafs, Rangers, Stars, Red Wings, Avalanche, ... you get the point WOULD definitely take this offer and run. I'm sure there are 15-20 teams that would definitely not want this deal. The 24% roll badk would put the big spenders back into a postiong of buying every decent player on the block without a tax in place to dissuade them from doing so. It is a start, but not quite the big breakthrough that it is being made out to be.

how do you suppose a team can buy there way to anything ? first off, most of the good players are restricted from signing elsewhere, secondly its proven that signing a bunch of UFA's isnt a path to success and they cant be used in arbitration.

id like to know how TOR or NYR or any other team could actually buy anything ?

also, if you look at hte players proposal, its has a significant tax over 60m in year 3. why isnt this reasonable ?

dr

 

[Classic Devil]

This isn't going to work, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that as soon as all the big name players have contracts which expire, they'll be asking for the same amount of money they were getting before the rollback. This doesn't control salary inflation, it just decreases it for the moment.

 

[Kid Canada]

What the Owners will do is counter with their proposal. They didn't flat out reject the proposal.

You know my point, they didn't accept it. Yes, I know negotiating is part of the process, but I was just making a point saying why they didnt accept this deal.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Funny, before the CBA became the huge issue it is today, I'd say that Bettman was loathed almost universally.
In some ways, I was hoping the players would concede nothing and the owners would cave. Why? It would force the owners to can Bettman.
If he wins too much at the bargainning table for his owners, we could be stuck with this moron for years.
I'm afraid to think of what hockey will be like in 10 years with Bettman in charge.

You know, one of my main reasons for opposing a cap was that Bettman had put so much stock into one that if he didn't get it, he'd have to be fired.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

how do you suppose a team can buy there way to anything ? first off, most of the good players are restricted from signing elsewhere, secondly its proven that signing a bunch of UFA's isnt a path to success and they cant be used in arbitration.

id like to know how TOR or NYR or any other team could actually buy anything ?

also, if you look at hte players proposal, its has a significant tax over 60m in year 3. why isnt this reasonable ?

dr

as the players bceome available, all the best players will be scooped up by the big spending teams, who will not be affected the least by the weak luxury tax system proposed by the PA. It won't make a damn bit of difference after this season where a rather small concession (24% rollback) has been offered.

 

[no13matssundin]

Guys, I hate to be the one to rain on the "the hockey season is saved' parade, but the owners are going to reject it.

3 reasons why:

1. There is no cost certainty
2. There is no cost certainty
3. There is no cost certainty.

I want to see hockey too, but youd better believe the owners are going reject it.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

as the players bceome available, all the best players will be scooped up by the big spending teams, who will not be affected the least by the weak luxury tax system proposed by the PA. It won't make a damn bit of difference after this season where a rather small concession (24% rollback) has been offered.

you are welcome to your opinion, but its quite insulting to suggest a 24% rollback is a rather small concession.

you are really naive if you truly believe it.

dr

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

In the big picture, it is a very small concession.On TSN, they said the players have been told they will make it all back in 24 months.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

25% gives the owners a do over on how badly they have run there business the past 10 years. The players stepped up to the plate and gave the owners a proposal that even between couldn't just throw away. the players have to expect the owners to up the luxury tax to more than. 20$ on payroll over 40 million. Tell me the islanders wouldn't love to pay yashin 24% less money over the rest of that horrible contract?

Anybody that hates this offer clearly wouldn't like any offer the players could come up with. I'm sure owners are going to get to between and say tweak this offer but don't let it slip away. At least I hope that happens because I doubt between could win an impasse with an offer like this on the table. I honestly think the owners were blindsided with this offer. Cost certainty is not something that exists in the real world.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

This is not a good proposal if the NHLPA was serious they need to link salaries and revenues. Even if they put the tax number with assigned % of revenues it would look reasonable.

If the NHLPA feels like a luxury tax then there needs to be a soft cap associated with it. These number they offered are terrible.

Hopefully the NHL comes back with a top to bottom proposal and not some bizzare ones like the points, and centralized negotiation systems.

 

[chriss_co]

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.

The owners have conceeded with multimillion losses over the past 5 years. The owners have conceeded an increase to player salaries from around $1 million to $1.8 million the last 10 years. The owners (via expansion) have created about 150 new jobs for players the last 10 years.

But the biggie in this... the owners dont need to concede. They can't concede. They are in a position where if they concede on the basis of the financial agreement in the CBA, they will kill teams.

Where will concessions be made in the CBA? In such things as free agency etc... but because of the situation the NHL is in, the owners aren't the ones who need to concede. Its the PA.

Anyways... having said that, the PA has conceded alot. Too bad, these concessions aren't long term. If this CBA agreement only lasted 3 years, i think there's a deal. But how many of you fans want to be back here in 3 years. The NHL wants a longterm agreement and that will require some sort of cost certainty. Now to me, cost certainty is not a salary cap.. ie i dont need a hard salary cap. However, a 20 cent luxory tax is nothing. Especially at $45 million.

I say 75 cent tax at 45 million and a dollar for dollar tax at 50 million (cap at 55 million). This is my concession (i was originally asking for a 35 million dollar for dollar cap)

The NHLPA made a very smart offer. They did two things in this offer.

1) They made a PR move in an attempt to win over the 'not so hardliners' who are against the players cuz they have done nothing serious until today. Its obvious it worked since unintelligent fans have been easily 'bought' with a 24% one time salary reduction.

2) Conceded that the league is losing money and is willing to negotiate how to fix it.

I expect a much tougher counterproposal by the NHL. Perhaps leaving their 'cost certainty' platform.

We are by no means out of the woods. Tuesday will be even more interesting than today.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

If the NHL wants to see how serious the NHLPA was with this offer and there desire to start the season, they should come back with a offer of a luxury tax at 38 million with a 1.50 for dollar charge, and go on with the 24% rollback and the arbitration rights and the other things they offered.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

25% gives the owners a do over on how badly they have run there business the past 10 years. The players stepped up to the plate and gave the owners a proposal that even between couldn't just throw away. the players have to expect the owners to up the luxury tax to more than. 20$ on payroll over 40 million. Tell me the islanders wouldn't love to pay yashin 24% less money over the rest of that horrible contract?

Anybody that hates this offer clearly wouldn't like any offer the players could come up with. I'm sure owners are going to get to between and say tweak this offer but don't let it slip away. At least I hope that happens because I doubt between could win an impasse with an offer like this on the table. I honestly think the owners were blindsided with this offer. Cost certainty is not something that exists in the real world.

The NHL is not the real world. Not even close.

 

[ti-vite]

With 50% of the players having no contract next season, and close to 75% at the end of the next, yes the rollback is a PR stunt, and is working.(http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=116929)

24% will ba all over the papers and on our TV screens. Wow.

Bob McKenzie wrote that the GMs laughed at the TSN solution of 1$ for every dollar over 38M$ as a tax and said it was not nearly enough. What do you think the league is going to do with this...

THis proposal is a perfect recipe to start this whole mess over.

As Gary Bettman clearly indicated, there will be a counter proposal, the one sitting on his desk for the last 2 months as planned. It wont pass.

No hockey, wait till next january (2006).