The Players Want Linkage After All (sort of)

[kdb209]

The full details from Goodenow's letter at http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115069:

Look at point #7 - the players want linkage if revenues go up.

They want the upside benefit of linkage without any of the risk.

They want to have it both ways - if revenues go up we want our share, if they go down, sorry not our problem.

Sorry Bob, but no linkage is just that NO LINKAGE - thats what you were clammering for, right?

NEW CBA DEAL POINTS

1. Term - 6 full seasons (through 9-15-11).

2. CBA System Incorporation of NHLPA December 9, 2004 proposal into the recently expired CBA, with indexing of financial provisions (per diems, etc.) at 2% per year, with the following additional changes requested by the NHL yesterday:

(a) Increased salary arbitration rights for Clubs -- to be agreed upon. Salary arbitration available after Player leaves Entry Level System.

(b) Cap on Exhibit 5 Individual B Performance Bonuses -- to be agreed upon.

(c) Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

3. Team Payroll Limit - $49M in salary and bonuses

4. Minimum Team Payroll - $25M (each team can fall no more than 10% below only twice during term).

5. Minimum Player Salary - $300K (as per NHL Proposal)

6. Payroll Taxes - $40M - $43M (25%)
$43M - $46M (50%)
$46M - $49M (75%)
$49M - $53.9M (150%) only twice per team during 6 year term

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

8. 2005 Playoffs 55% of playoff revenues to be paid to Players for the 2005 playoffs.

Click to read more...

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

The full details from Goodenow's letter at http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115069:

Look at point #7 - the players want linkage if revenues go up.

They want the upside benefit of linkage without any of the risk.

They want to have it both ways - if revenues go up we want our share, if they go down, sorry not our problem.

Sorry Bob, but no linkage is just that NO LINKAGE - thats what you were clammering for, right?

Ya know, I thought that's what they were saying when I read it, but I wasn't sure.

Now that you've cleared that up for me, F that!

They want no risk, all reward! Incredible. Incomprehensible.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side? they aren't the owners. They dont make the decisions. Stop being irrational.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

I saw that too..then someone just called (www.cknw.com) in as I was reading it to point that out

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side? they aren't the owners. They dont make the decisions. Stop being irrational.

ummm re read his post " no risk all reward"
Whos dense?

I know I am but hey..

 

[Chayos]

Are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side? they aren't the owners. They dont make the decisions. Stop being irrational.

Man what planet are u from. The players have to take the stance that this is a partnership and if they want a better deal in a 6 years they need to be prepared to ride the team bus now. Right now they are acting like they have been riding teh short bus!

 

[X8oD]

Are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side? they aren't the owners. They dont make the decisions. Stop being irrational.

are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side. They dont make the decisions, there for they deserve nothing from the business end.

Unless of course, this is from the players POV. Then its

Are You Dense? What risk should the players assume if the NHL is losing money. We only care if tey make a profit. And when they do, we will come running with our pockets open and hands out!

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Are you dense? What risk should the players assume on the business side? they aren't the owners. They dont make the decisions. Stop being irrational.

He is not being dense. Every other capped league has linkage. NFL, NBA, the Cap goes up and down pegged to league revenues. The NHLPA wanted to deviate from that norm. Fine, the NHL relutantly accepted. However, the ballsy part of this is what this thread is about. They only deviate so that the owners need to pay them even if that amount is 500% of revenues. But the players do NOT want deviation from the standard Cap being linked to revenues if revenues go up. They wanted the deviation, they should live with it either down OR up.

 

[Munchausen]

This is indeed a pathetic attempt from Goodenow at getting his cake and eating it too. It will not fly. Who cares anyway, the league is never going to budge an inch from their final offer.

In fact, if the players do not acccept the 42M cap, I'd go as far as saying to look for the owners to take the 42M offer off the table as soon as a season is cancelled and put linkage back with a more restrictive cap on it.

The union is already cracking from everywhere with players speaking out of frustration against their reps. It is set, game and close to match. Gary Bettman must be sleeping like a baby right now. Not sure Bob Goodenow is.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

This is indeed a pathetic attempt from Goodenow at getting his cake and eating it too. It will not fly. Who cares anyway, the league is never going to budge an inch from their final offer.

In fact, if the players do not acccept the 42M cap, I'd go as far as saying to look for the owners to take the 42M offer off the table as soon as a season is cancelled and put linkage back with a more restrictive cap on it.

I think you're right.

 

[Chayos]

He is not being dense. Every other capped league has linkage. NFL, NBA, the Cap goes up and down pegged to league revenues. The NHLPA wanted to deviate from that norm. Fine, the NHL relutantly accepted. However, the ballsy part of this is what this thread is about. They only deviate so that the owners need to pay them even if that amount is 500% of revenues. But the players do NOT want deviation from the standard Cap being linked to revenues if revenues go up. They wanted the deviation, they should live with it either down OR up.

I agree as well and teh funny thing about their proposal they want to use 2005/2006 as teh base year for revenues. Yah lets use the year after all this crap as teh base year and if the league make more money in teh enuing years our cap goes up.

Jesus the league is going to take a kicking next year and teh players want to use that year as the base year. hmmm this clause is absolutly crazy bad for the owners.

using this model if the league has a loss of revenue for 2005/2006 from 2003/2004 of say 35 percent that would mean they would use 1.33 billion in revenues.

say they get back 10% per year to the end of the deal it would look like this.

revenues hard cap floor
2005/2006 1.33bil 53.95 mil 25 mil
2006/2007 1.55bil 59.35 27.5
2007/2008 1.705 bil 65.2 30.25
2008/2009 1.875 bil 71.72 33.275
2009/2010 2.06 bil 78.89 mil 36.71 mill

Geez it takes to the last year of teh deal get back to the same revenue and look what the minimum payroll if for teams $36.7 million dollars is the floor. Man that is the worst thing i have ever seen.

This clause alone make this deal unworkable from an owners perspective. The owners can't amek to much money or the minimum payroll will sink the league.

sure there is a tax but it is rising as well so the top 8 would begin to not pay into the tax pool as teh tax rate kick in points became so high they would be able to afford to go there. In 09/10 the max tax would make a top payroll team pay a whopping 95 million with taxes to be over teh cap and NO team can afford to go anywhere near that.

this proposal would sink 10 teams in the NHL by teh end of this CBA.

Bob Goodenough should be drawn and quartered for even putting that clause in!

 

[s7ark]

Wow, I never even paid attention to that clause. Good catch all. That is horrible. That clause will destroy the league, why would you even put that in? That is worse then when the owners tried to get rid of arbitration...

Just horrible

 

[kdb209]

Just bumping up this thread so people realize how the NHLPA offer is not a big consession, and the $49M cap (or is it a $54M cap or oops-look-at-clause-#7 $60M+ cap by the end of the deal) is a sham.

Sorry Bob, you said you didn't want linkage, so NO LINKAGE FOR YOU.