the players and their Hypocrisy!

[Greschner4]

Really? Seems exactly like it. Exact same verbage, exact same mechanisms, everything. The only difference is that the NHL has placed conditions on the deal that demand the system be guaranteed to work.

This is the exact same situation the NHLPA put to the NHL back in December when the talks of a hybrid system were floating around. The NHLPA said that they would agree to the NHL's deal if they would try the NHLPA's offer for three years, and if it didn't work they would try the NHL's offer. The difference here is that there is no three year period and there are triggers based on the NHL framework, and that should those thresholds be reached the NHL's agreement goes into effect the following season. Zero difference from the what the players have offered except the NHL has put strict thresholds onto the system as a guarantee that it would work. Failure of the NHLPA's system would be immediately evident and the NHL's system implemented.

If the NHLPA were so sure their system would work they would be all over this like a fat chick on a Smartee. Unfortunately Goodenow knows better and has said the framework is not t his liking any longer and a new one must be formulated. That says it all right there. Goodenow is running away from his own proposal looking for a new framework. He knows it's flawed and wouldn't work.

It's self-evident to those who want to see ....

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Is anyone else already sick of the word "triggers" I think it may have over taken "cost certainty" or "good dialogue" as the most annoying word now.

 

[Greschner4]

Greg, you are 100% right.




And it would last just about as long as you would want slop to work for. About 45 minutes. If the NHLPA's Dec. 9 offer was meaningless, then I don't know what this NHL offer is. Inane?

It's an effort to craft a deal using both PA and league ideas. Goodenow wasn't willing to touch the league ideas. Who's to blame?

And by the way I agree that it is a joke in current form, everyone here supporting the league does. That's not the point.

 

[Greschner4]

Please find me a quote where Bettman says "Here's our proposal, but don't worry about the triggers, we're perfectly willing to negotiate all of them into your favor."

There is no reason to believe he will negotiate or get rid of any of the triggers. They're set up to match his dreamworld salary cap of 55% of revenues, a payroll range of $32-$42 million, and average salary of $36 million.

He threw out a concept and said he's willing to listen to union ideas on it. What do you think he was saying other than he'd be willing to negotiate the triggers?

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

Reporting I've seen have the triggers not kicking in until at the earliest the end of next year.

I agree that this year should be a write-off.

If what you say is the problem was the problem, Goodenow should counter with three years for our system.

Of course he didn't counter at all and won't negotiate at all on the December 9/Trigger format which only shows that the December 9 offer was a total fraud.

The triggers were designed to be hit.
33% difference between top and bottom. What incentive does Pittsburgh and other low payroll teams have to spend more money and bring themselves within this 33%?
Hell, it's much more in their interest to not spend the money and get the cap system. That's the funny thing, the cap can actually be triggered by teams NOT spending money.

 

[petrobruin]

Why Are You Here

Simple: Why is the onus on the players to control the owners spending?

Do you not see that the league is broken.

Lets go with your ideas and let the players decide how much they're worth ,after they buy the teams ,arenas ,and staff.

Take of the NHLPA hats after a game and show me your team colours.

 

[habfan4]

The triggers were designed to be hit.
33% difference between top and bottom. What incentive does Pittsburgh and other low payroll teams have to spend more money and bring themselves within this 33%?
Hell, it's much more in their interest to not spend the money and get the cap system. That's the funny thing, the cap can actually be triggered by teams NOT spending money.

You're making an assumption that the League would not be willing to negotiate the conditions which would activate the owners proposal. I've yet to read anything on the subject that leads me to believe that the trigger mechanisms are cast in stone.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Simple: Why is the onus on the players to control the owners spending?

Simple answer . . . it is not. The system with unbalanced revenue streams is a recipe for just has happened. Which would be fine if this were a regular business, but this is not, this is a sport that fancies itself as a national sport and not a glorified garage league. Which means that the big markets need the mid-sized or small markets to survive as a national and international sport, the 'franchises' are completely interdependent if the league is to survive as a league.

Therefore it is the system, where teams with huge revenue streams set the market for salaries for teams that have smaller revenue streams inevitably driving those other teams into bankruptcy and/or eventual irrelevancy. The players are only tangentially involved in what is wrong, and with the solution. The real focus is the system, which both large revenue and small revenue teams long term have a deep self interest in fixing. The players, again third hand, have an interest too. Cut yourself down to 6 teams and there goes 80% of the jobs in the league.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I'm sorry but I just can't even think about feeling bad or even being on the side of the owners when none of the big teams will revenue share anything from the regular season, only playoffs. Until revenue sharing is done for regular season revenue then I think it proves owners are serious about fixing the economics of the game. As I said before I think the best method would be a soft-cap, but it also needs to have GOOD revenue sharing and not the vague crap the owners keep talking about, which means they need to share regular season revenue.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

I'm sorry but I just can't even think about feeling bad or even being on the side of the owners when none of the big teams will revenue share anything from the regular season, only playoffs. Until revenue sharing is done for regular season revenue then I think it proves owners are serious about fixing the economics of the game. As I said before I think the best method would be a soft-cap, but it also needs to have GOOD revenue sharing and not the vague crap the owners keep talking about, which means they need to share regular season revenue.

Good luck getting the owners to agree to that.
The value of a team like Toronto or New York would plummet if this were to happen.
There are other answers to the problem that do not involve regular season revenue sharing.

 

[shnagle]

Good luck getting the owners to agree to that.
The value of a team like Toronto or New York would plummet if this were to happen.
There are other answers to the problem that do not involve regular season revenue sharing.

Bettman just did if he accepts the Dec. 9th proposal. Revenue sharing was a key point for the union in wanting to control the revenue disparity among big revenue and small revenue teams. Their proposal has three different scenarios for revenue sharing amongst these teams. Here is the link(go to section 4):
http://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/NHLPAcomProposal.pdf

 

[CGG]

Good luck getting the owners to agree to that.
The value of a team like Toronto or New York would plummet if this were to happen.
There are other answers to the problem that do not involve regular season revenue sharing.

The value of those teams would still go up. They'd dish out $11 million in revenue sharing but save $15 million in salaries, so they're still ahead. There are no other answers to the problem. Sharing only playoff money takes cash away from Calgary and gives it to the Rangers. How is that a good idea?

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

Bettman just did if he accepts the Dec. 9th proposal. Revenue sharing was a key point for the union in wanting to control the revenue disparity among big revenue and small revenue teams. Their proposal has three different scenarios for revenue sharing amongst these teams. Here is the link(go to section 4):
http://www.nhlpa.com/Proposal/NHLPAcomProposal.pdf

But Bettman never did accept the Dec. 9 proposal, yesterdays display was simply PR, he was willing to run with the players proposal for a year and a half knowing that his proposal would then kick in.

 

[shnagle]

But Bettman never did accept the Dec. 9 proposal, yesterdays display was simply PR, he was willing to run with the players proposal for a year and a half knowing that his proposal would then kick in.

I agree completely but was just pointing out in the context of the last NHL proposal what the owners would be agreeing to if they actually wanted to keep the framework of the Dec. 9th proposal.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Sharing only playoff money takes cash away from Calgary and gives it to the Rangers. How is that a good idea?

Where did you get that assinine idea? Revenue sharing goes to the teams that fall below the minimum salary threshold. The Rangers do not qualify.

 

[CGG]

Where did you get that assinine idea? Revenue sharing goes to the teams that fall below the minimum salary threshold. The Rangers do not qualify.

Ya, that makes a lot more sense. How do you fall below the minimum salary threshold? You can't, it's a minimum. Brilliant.

Unfortunately we don't know what the league's revenue sharing plan does, because they refuse to reveal any details at all. All we know is from a leaked memo that states they want to share playoff revenues and only playoff revenues.

Calgary = Lots of playoff revnue, so they'd suffer.
Rangers = No playoff revenue, so they'd either benefit or at worst, stay the same and not share anything with the lesser teams.

 

[codswallop]

BrickRed, rollins215, Top Shelf: all have offered reasonable, well thought out, and non-confrontational comments in this thread. Yet no one has responded to further discuss their points. Interesting...

 

[Mess]

First, your points are predicated on the erroneous premise (at least IMO) that the NHLPA would be willing to negotiate a CBA around the possibility of a cost certainty system being imposed.

In terms of point number 1. The league could have agreed to a longer test period for the PA's proposal. However, it would simply be postponing the inevitable; the PA's approach is based on a short term salary correction, coupled with some entry level salary restrictions. In a year, perhaps two, the league would be right back at square one. Player reps (to their credit) would have certainly been able to recoup all of their client’s losses and then some.

In terms of point 2. Assuming that the triggers were/are negotiable (IMO a false premise as I mentioned earlier) the league and the PA could certainly codify restrictions and/or exceptions with respect to the triggers being set off.

How do you Know your point # 2 isn't exactly what the on going talks are involving right now and the NHL is not willing to budge from its triggers?? .. This is a 2-way street here these collective bargaining agreements ..

You can believe what you want but to wrongfully accuse the NHLPA of not bargaining in good faith because they did not accept an NHL proposal that immediately switched over to NHL one without opportunity or even an attempt to succeed is either very bias pro-owner or naive IMO ..

The NHLPA could just as easy flip it around and say we start with the NHL proposal and then flip to the NHLPA one when it fails and have similar triggers that virtually guarantee that the NHL one will fail .. For example the NHL suggested a 32 min - 42 max range ..

The NHLPA could say if any 3 teams fall below the $ 32 mil min mark in salary we switch to the NHLPA proposal .. That is no different then what the NHL did .. They said if 3 or more teams exceed $ 42 million we roll over .. and as on right now after a rollback included .. Philly, Toronto, Detroit and NJ are over .. In the flip side .. immediately Boston , Pittsburgh, Florida, Atlanta are way under the $32 min amount, and the NHL proposal has failed immediately as well.. Anyone that can't see both sides is being a Hypocrite ..because it really is the same from both sides .. Bettman would reject that proposal outright and we would hear the same nonsense that Bettman didn't even accept his own proposal or thought it wouldn't work ..

Why would it be different .. The NHLPA is even using Bettman's own numbers in the triggers against him with 100% guaranteed failure immediately .. ??

 

[Charge_Seven]

BrickRed, rollins215, Top Shelf: all have offered reasonable, well thought out, and non-confrontational comments in this thread. Yet no one has responded to further discuss their points. Interesting...

Nobody has commented on their posts (asides from you, and now me) because all of the points that are covered in their posts were also presented by the other, more confrontational posters here, and have been discussed with them.

Interesting indeed...

 

[X0ssbar]

I'm sorry but I just can't even think about feeling bad or even being on the side of the owners when none of the big teams will revenue share anything from the regular season, only playoffs. Until revenue sharing is done for regular season revenue then I think it proves owners are serious about fixing the economics of the game. As I said before I think the best method would be a soft-cap, but it also needs to have GOOD revenue sharing and not the vague crap the owners keep talking about, which means they need to share regular season revenue.

The NHL has just stated said that they would begin play under the player's agreement. That means the NHL has agreed to play under the player's recommended revenue sharing system which includes regular season revenue.

NHLPA Proposal -> Section Four is their proposed revenue sharing system.

 

[codswallop]

Nobody has commented on their posts (asides from you, and now me) because all of the points that are covered in their posts were also presented by the other, more confrontational posters here, and have been discussed with them.

Interesting indeed...

You kinda made the point I was going for.

The ones I mentioned didn't spit venom and reek of bias one way or the other. The ones you refer to definitely do.

Those three offered a better and more suitable platform for a civil debate, instead of the usual fanfare that has people constantly at each other's throats and the use of insults is considered normal.

Now, I never expect to set a big thread talked about in such a civil manner all the way through. But it sure as hell would be nice every once in a while to come even close to that. Maybe we could actually learn something instead of hearing the same garbage recycled over and over again.

 

[krandor]

Why would it be different .. The NHLPA is even using Bettman's own numbers in the triggers against him with 100% guaranteed failure immediately .. ??

The triggers can't be triggered until next season so there is time to get things in balance.

If the NHLPA is concerned about triggers being triggered too soon, but some more clauses in their proposal to deal with it. I can't remember if the Dec 9th proposal had a salary floor in it, but if it didn't then add a salary floor to their Dec 9th proposal and change the triggers to where the NHL proposal cannot be implemented if any team is under the salary floor.

There are ways to make this framework work. It is obvious that neither side of going to get off the cap/no cap positions so something else has to be done and this seems like as good a way to go abou it as any with appropriate negotiation of the details.

 

[AlexGodynyuk]

The value of those teams would still go up. They'd dish out $11 million in revenue sharing but save $15 million in salaries, so they're still ahead. There are no other answers to the problem. Sharing only playoff money takes cash away from Calgary and gives it to the Rangers. How is that a good idea?

My quote was referring to the person who said they wanted meaningful regular season revenue sharing (ie splitting all regular season revenues between all clubs), not the luxury tax revenue sharing (which I do think is a good idea).

 

[habfan4]

How do you Know your point # 2 isn't exactly what the on going talks are involving right now and the NHL is not willing to budge from its triggers?? .. This is a 2-way street here these collective bargaining agreements ..

I sincerely hope that the PA and the league are negotiating, on any basis. The league has certainly dug in its heels with regards to cost certainty, but have appeared willing to discuss various models/implementation strategies. On that basis, I'd be surprised to learn that they would not be prepared to budge on the triggers (but who knows and I concede that no one can answer that question definitively, save for Bettman or the owners themselves).

You can believe what you want but to wrongfully accuse the NHLPA of not bargaining in good faith because they did not accept an NHL proposal that immediately switched over to NHL one without opportunity or even an attempt to succeed is either very bias pro-owner or naive IMO ..

The NHLPA has a stated position vis a vis "cost certainty" systems/plans. To suggest that they IMO have not moved off that position (or are unlikely to move off that position) is not tantamount to accusing them of not bargaining in good faith.

The NHLPA could just as easy flip it around and say we start with the NHL proposal and then flip to the NHLPA one when it fails and have similar triggers that virtually guarantee that the NHL one will fail .. For example the NHL suggested a 32 min - 42 max range ..

The NHLPA could say if any 3 teams fall below the $ 32 mil min mark in salary we switch to the NHLPA proposal .. That is no different then what the NHL did .. They said if 3 or more teams exceed $ 42 million we roll over .. and as on right now after a rollback included .. Philly, Toronto, Detroit and NJ are over .. In the flip side .. immediately Boston , Pittsburgh, Florida, Atlanta are way under the $32 min amount, and the NHL proposal has failed immediately as well.. Anyone that can't see both sides is being a Hypocrite ..because it really is the same from both sides .. Bettman would reject that proposal outright and we would hear the same nonsense that Bettman didn't even accept his own proposal or thought it wouldn't work ..

I would like nothing better than to see the NHLPA offer any kind of rebuttal to the league's CBA overtures besides the current stream of outright rejections. You see the league's proposal as designed to fail, where I prefer to see it as yet another proposal/basis from which the parties can begin to negotiate (at least some sort of hybrid system).

 

[mackdogs*]

The triggers can't be triggered until next season so there is time to get things in balance.

You mean teams could trade players and potentially talk them into more reasonable contracts to come in line with the proposal? Wow, imagine that the NHL are not totalitarian psychos.

I guess the new system would last for more than the 30 minutes pro-PA'ers here are spouting?? Wow, I'm so glad I don't swallow their crap without thinking like a lot of people seem to.