The TSN Solution
- Thread starter Quantas
- Start date
- Status
Just saw it on TV.... there is alot of interesting points in this solution, but I don't think Knob Goodenow knows how to negotiate in good faith, nor does GB for that manner. These guys should be embarassed that the TSN has been working on a solution, and Knob and Gary are just sitting on their a$$e$!!!! If either had a brain, one or both would use the phone!Quantas said:
Onion Boy
Registered User
The only I don't get and never understood was why people talk about lowering the unrestricted free agent age. If that is the general root of salary inflation, why not RAISE the UFA age to say 34. The NHLPA would not be happy with it, but I'm sure they'd take it over a cap as long as the arbitration system stayed roughly the same.
After all, we want a competitive balance insofar as teams being as good as the players they drafted/traded for. Not absolutely equality of all 30 teams.
After all, we want a competitive balance insofar as teams being as good as the players they drafted/traded for. Not absolutely equality of all 30 teams.
Well he did show that there were a few areas of agreement. He proposed lowering the UFA age to 30. That could have a significant effect alone.
The contentious ones he said was the $6mil max salary for a player and a 100% luxury tax over $40mil
And he seems to think there are moderates on both sides who might work with this. The players out of fear of no better offer.
I dont really see the need to make a max salary of $6mil. Nor a stifling tax. What if all his other proposals were adopted. Why isnt that good enough to work?
The contentious ones he said was the $6mil max salary for a player and a 100% luxury tax over $40mil
And he seems to think there are moderates on both sides who might work with this. The players out of fear of no better offer.
I dont really see the need to make a max salary of $6mil. Nor a stifling tax. What if all his other proposals were adopted. Why isnt that good enough to work?
Is actually pretty good.
Note only 27 of more than 700 players are slated to make over $6 Million next season. A Stud 18 year old will still get maxed out and ALSO could be a UFA at age 28!!!
The players and owners should take notes and get back to a F'ing Table.
Note only 27 of more than 700 players are slated to make over $6 Million next season. A Stud 18 year old will still get maxed out and ALSO could be a UFA at age 28!!!
The players and owners should take notes and get back to a F'ing Table.
Leaf Army
Registered User
sjb3599 said:
I wouldn't say UFA is the general root of salary inflation.
The general root of salary inflation would be restricted free agency, qualifying offers and arbitration.
These are the things that really kill teams. Like when a team has to pay out the nose to retain a player just because he has arbitration rights or a player that has an off year is still rewarded with a raise.
For those of you who didn't catch it on TV, here are the highlights:
1. A hard cap of $6 million on individual player salaries with no cap on how much teams may spend on total payrolls
2. A dollar for dollar, or 100 per cent, luxury tax on all team payrolls in excess of $40 million with the tax monies to be redistributed to those teams with payrolls of less than $40 million but more than $30 million.
3. A revamped salary arbitration system that allows the teams, as well as the players, to file for arbitration and baseball style "final-offer" arbitration
4. Liberalized free agency with the age for unrestricted status moving to age 30 or after 10 years service in the NHL, whichever comes first.
5. Qualifying offers to be 75 per cent of the player's most recent salary level
6. An entry-level salary and signing bonus cap of $850,000 per year, with no more than 25 per cent of that amount in signing bonus, plus allowable performance bonuses to another $850,000, effectively capping entry-level salaries at no more than $1.7 million a year.
My take:
1. I'm not sure that a cap on player salary is going to be good enough. If players know what their limits are, how many do you think are going to push to get it. So while you won't have anyone making more that that, I think you'll end up with a lot more hitting the $6 M ceiling, so the net effect might be the same.
2. No problems with this, except double the tax if teams go above $50 M
3. Perfect as is.
4. No issues with this
5. Any number between 60-75% is good, and definitely better than the current rules of 100-110%.
6. I say make the whole rookie-salary fiasco idiot proof and cap the whole thing (salary and bonus) at $1 M and be done with it.
You can get all the details here:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9997
1. A hard cap of $6 million on individual player salaries with no cap on how much teams may spend on total payrolls
2. A dollar for dollar, or 100 per cent, luxury tax on all team payrolls in excess of $40 million with the tax monies to be redistributed to those teams with payrolls of less than $40 million but more than $30 million.
3. A revamped salary arbitration system that allows the teams, as well as the players, to file for arbitration and baseball style "final-offer" arbitration
4. Liberalized free agency with the age for unrestricted status moving to age 30 or after 10 years service in the NHL, whichever comes first.
5. Qualifying offers to be 75 per cent of the player's most recent salary level
6. An entry-level salary and signing bonus cap of $850,000 per year, with no more than 25 per cent of that amount in signing bonus, plus allowable performance bonuses to another $850,000, effectively capping entry-level salaries at no more than $1.7 million a year.
My take:
1. I'm not sure that a cap on player salary is going to be good enough. If players know what their limits are, how many do you think are going to push to get it. So while you won't have anyone making more that that, I think you'll end up with a lot more hitting the $6 M ceiling, so the net effect might be the same.
2. No problems with this, except double the tax if teams go above $50 M
3. Perfect as is.
4. No issues with this
5. Any number between 60-75% is good, and definitely better than the current rules of 100-110%.
6. I say make the whole rookie-salary fiasco idiot proof and cap the whole thing (salary and bonus) at $1 M and be done with it.
You can get all the details here:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=9997
I'd be more than happy if they agreed on this solution. Obviously, since it contains a cap, the players won't go for it, so I thought of a different way to get the same result:
Instead of the $6 million limit, come up with a percentage of average salary. I don't care what it is, but for arguments sake, lets say 500%. If the average salary is $1.5 million, the max is 1.5 x 500%, or $7.5 million. This way, owners are still determining the max salary because they determine average salary, and that max salary can go up or down based on (quasi) market conditions.
Also, base the tax threshold on league revenue. In basketball, its something like 61%, so using that, the tax threshold would be around $42 million-not dramatically different than what's proposed, but something flexible.
Instead of the $6 million limit, come up with a percentage of average salary. I don't care what it is, but for arguments sake, lets say 500%. If the average salary is $1.5 million, the max is 1.5 x 500%, or $7.5 million. This way, owners are still determining the max salary because they determine average salary, and that max salary can go up or down based on (quasi) market conditions.
Also, base the tax threshold on league revenue. In basketball, its something like 61%, so using that, the tax threshold would be around $42 million-not dramatically different than what's proposed, but something flexible.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Link to the indepth article for those who don't have TSN
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897&hubName=nhl
It has some well thought out ideas and at least it's a starting place for negotiations.
However, my conclusion is that the reason for "cost certainty" mantra from the owners is to "guarantee" that teams will *at least* break even. Reading that econ prof on TSN a few weeks ago about salary caps does not endear me to them, even so.
A system that will allow the worst business practices to be profitable should not be put in place. One that will allow adequate business practices to *break even* and good business practices to *make a profit* would encourage fiduciary responsibility, which should allow for long term stable economic existence of the league.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897&hubName=nhl
It has some well thought out ideas and at least it's a starting place for negotiations.
However, my conclusion is that the reason for "cost certainty" mantra from the owners is to "guarantee" that teams will *at least* break even. Reading that econ prof on TSN a few weeks ago about salary caps does not endear me to them, even so.
A system that will allow the worst business practices to be profitable should not be put in place. One that will allow adequate business practices to *break even* and good business practices to *make a profit* would encourage fiduciary responsibility, which should allow for long term stable economic existence of the league.
Jussi
Registered User
I'd add to the free agency age limit that these players who have represented the same team for 8 consecutive seasons would also become UFAs. These players salaries would also be excluded from the luxury tax, if they choose to re-sign with the same team. This would encourage players to stay with same team that drafted/signed them and teams to stick with their drafted players.
I think the cap amounts for player max and determining the tax distribution would absolutely need to vary over time. It's unfair to limit the players to a max salary if there isn't a built in system to negotiate that number each year. I'm sure they would work that into the deal.
Buffaloed
webmaster
The problem with this proposal and every other one with a luxury tax is that the NHL is opposed to revenue sharing. A luxury tax is a salary cap, though you'll never see the NHLPA admit it. Until the owners accept that the only way they're going to have a cap is if it's based on some form of revenue sharing (eg luxury tax), a new CBA will not get done.
I don't know where all this hostility towards Goodenow and the NHLPA is coming from as the players proposed CBA (luxury cap, lower entry level salaries) is a lot more reasonable than the owners hard, fixed, cap proposal that's irrespective of changes in revenues. Instead of rejecting the NHLPA proposal as out of hand, the NHL should be working with them to tweak it so it's fair to everyone. I believe the NHLPA has gone a lot further towards providing a workable solution than the NHL.
I don't know where all this hostility towards Goodenow and the NHLPA is coming from as the players proposed CBA (luxury cap, lower entry level salaries) is a lot more reasonable than the owners hard, fixed, cap proposal that's irrespective of changes in revenues. Instead of rejecting the NHLPA proposal as out of hand, the NHL should be working with them to tweak it so it's fair to everyone. I believe the NHLPA has gone a lot further towards providing a workable solution than the NHL.
I didnt realize he proposed free agency at 30 or after 10 years. THis is not good. The players who start at 18 are the ones that become the big expensive stars usually and they will be free agents at 28. In their prime. THis cant be good for small markets with a budding superstar in his prime.
I dont see how you can say no player can make more than $6mil. Perhaps say no RFA can get more than $6mil, but UFA is UFA.
Will this system save the owners the $300mil they seem to want to cut back? Is it cost certainty? If you make the adjustments to the rate of escalation of RFAs why do you need then to deter the spending so much. Might not a lesser tax actually raise more money for redistribution? Isnt it more the owners against massive redistribution?
At least its a plan though. But does it have anything to do with the core issue they are fighting over?
I dont see how you can say no player can make more than $6mil. Perhaps say no RFA can get more than $6mil, but UFA is UFA.
Will this system save the owners the $300mil they seem to want to cut back? Is it cost certainty? If you make the adjustments to the rate of escalation of RFAs why do you need then to deter the spending so much. Might not a lesser tax actually raise more money for redistribution? Isnt it more the owners against massive redistribution?
At least its a plan though. But does it have anything to do with the core issue they are fighting over?
Buffaloed said:
ummm, the NHL is for revenue sharing, not sure where you got the above from
http://nhlcbanews.com/reaction/daly_mailbag081604.html
the TSN solution is ok, but the 40 million luxery tax will not work at all, esp. with only a 100% tax after anything above the 40 million mark
if the Rangers spend 60 million and pay another 20 miilion it will mean nothing, if small market teams spend 30 million, lets say the 12 teams that are below 40 million collect some of that 20 million....thats less than 2 million per team which would raise there payrolls very little
so the Rangers would still be able to buy at least 3 6 million players plus a 2 million player more than most other teams...its worthless
try placing a 100% tax on anything after 35
a 200% tax on anything after 40
and a 300% on anything after 45
now that would keep salaries between 30 and 45 with alot more money heading to the small market teams
I totally agree with Buffaloed, the players made in my opinion a significant proposal, obviously not there best because you need room to further bargain, but at least they made a realistic proposal, the owners have done absolutely nothing to keep them at the bargaining table.
If the owners or the NHLPA looked around the internet and watched shows like TSN they could probably come to an agreement just by piecing bits from here and there, which would probably work for both players and owners and then work out the minor details, like Olympics, rule changes, schedule length, etc
If the owners or the NHLPA looked around the internet and watched shows like TSN they could probably come to an agreement just by piecing bits from here and there, which would probably work for both players and owners and then work out the minor details, like Olympics, rule changes, schedule length, etc
Last edited:
Egghammer said:
see, I think it shows how bad hockey is because the owners have yet to change there proposal or even consider the NHLPAs proposal
the owners are showing how bad things are by not budging and not proposing anything other than a cap
StevenintheATL
Registered User
I really like the proposal Brian Burke floated during the WCH:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/9821093.htm?1c
I think that pulling ideas from other sports' CBAs is smart, as some of these are already proven ideas.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/9821093.htm?1c
I think that pulling ideas from other sports' CBAs is smart, as some of these are already proven ideas.
early free agency is good because...etc
simple supply and demand.
the more players available, the cheaper the deal.
i like everything about the TSN solution, i don't care if goodenow and bettman don't , the players should vote and the owners should vote and see what happens.
Lets get it on before we have to watch replacement players.etc
simple supply and demand.
the more players available, the cheaper the deal.
i like everything about the TSN solution, i don't care if goodenow and bettman don't , the players should vote and the owners should vote and see what happens.
Lets get it on before we have to watch replacement players.etc
handtrick
Registered User
I think the key element of this proposal is the face saving element of the individual $6 mill cap and the luxury tax. At this point face saving is the only means that a deal can be struck short of a bust up of the union. This can be tweeked, but the framework is there.
The major thing I don't like is the qualifying offer at 75%, and if not appropriate it goes to arbitration. Maybe I read it wrong, but that would increase arbitration numbers without cause, eventhough the two-way arbitration system makes alot more sense.
My dad was a labor relations negotiator for General Motors his whole life...and if there is one thing he taught me, it was that "you have to leave your negotiating partner a way to save face when lines are drawn in the sand, or no deal will ever be struck." This proposal at least includes that element....
The major thing I don't like is the qualifying offer at 75%, and if not appropriate it goes to arbitration. Maybe I read it wrong, but that would increase arbitration numbers without cause, eventhough the two-way arbitration system makes alot more sense.
My dad was a labor relations negotiator for General Motors his whole life...and if there is one thing he taught me, it was that "you have to leave your negotiating partner a way to save face when lines are drawn in the sand, or no deal will ever be struck." This proposal at least includes that element....
Rumor has it TSN has an Iraq solution and an overall Middle East plan. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded later this month and maybe Spud MacKenzie will win
shayne said:
Supply and demand only works 'perfectly' in a free market system.. one that doesn't exist (not even the US)... so having more players doesn't necessarily mean a significant decrease in the average player salary
plus, where are u going to get these 'new' players? the NHLPA is against contraction as well (although their bargaining tactics suggest otherwise)
i like the TSN solution but I know the union will never accept it... especially the player cap
the union also doesn't like the luxory tax.. especially the 100% part of it (which i think is too lenient.. make it 150-200%).. the union will call this tax as a cap and end discussions right there..
and as appealing as having the owners and players vote on it, it will give u the same result with bettman and goodenow at the helm... remember that they represent the interests of the players and the owners... if either side sees a deal they like yet their representative isn't going for it, they can start a 'coup' to accept the deal.. as appealing as it is to be able to hack upon bettman and goodenow (i like to do it too) this CBA is more than just 2 men fighting each other.. its two sides... the owners vs the players
i like the TSN deal.. i especially like the arbitration and qualifying offer clauses presented.. those 2 principles are huge reasons why salaries have been so inflationary.. allowing teams to go to arbitration NEEDS to be in the new deal
i want hockey as much as everyone. but i dont want to see hockey if it only lasts a year or two... get it fixed.. thats what is important
give a hungry man a fish and he will be full for a day... teach a hungry man how to fish and he will be full forever
look at the future.. not the present.. this CBA has to work for the future of the game
Well, I don't like the limiting of entry level players regarding salaries being according to the round a player is drafted in. Most people believe that is already in existence, however it was NOT a part of the old CBA. As far as the actual amounts for entry level players, I feel they're a little low. But, I'd be interested in seeing what the proposed bonus' are - depending on the benchmarks, it might not be so bad. All in all, I think the whole thing is pretty good.
The BEST part, in my opinion - is that neither of the parties involved would be THOROUGHLY happy with the solution. It would be a compromise for both sides, rather equally, I believe. That's the best way to get something done. It would likely prevent the two-year-old behaviors of Bettman & Goodenow from the cry of "your chocolate cake is bigger than my chocolate cake", so to speak.
The BEST part, in my opinion - is that neither of the parties involved would be THOROUGHLY happy with the solution. It would be a compromise for both sides, rather equally, I believe. That's the best way to get something done. It would likely prevent the two-year-old behaviors of Bettman & Goodenow from the cry of "your chocolate cake is bigger than my chocolate cake", so to speak.
JKP
Registered User
My simple solution (borrowed from Charlie Finley of the Oakland A's when MLB was first dealing with free agency):
"Make 'em all free agents"
Sign all players to 1-year contracts only. Then let supply and demand work itself out. Problem with pro sports is that only a small handful of the "impact" players are available in a year. Small supply, high demand. If you had to buy all 22 players each year out of the 650 players, I believe salaries would stay reasonable. At the very least the bums who have a good year in their walk year would get corrected in the following year after they start to suck again.
"Make 'em all free agents"
Sign all players to 1-year contracts only. Then let supply and demand work itself out. Problem with pro sports is that only a small handful of the "impact" players are available in a year. Small supply, high demand. If you had to buy all 22 players each year out of the 650 players, I believe salaries would stay reasonable. At the very least the bums who have a good year in their walk year would get corrected in the following year after they start to suck again.
It does seem likely that if you make them all free agents, that overall the salaries might come down, but the elite players salaries would surely skyrocket. Far out of the reach of the small markets. Heatley and Kovalchuk or Lecavalier and Richards would be too expensive to keep on one team.
thinkwild said:
I don't think the salaries for the top guys would surely skyrocket. They might go up, but they might stay level or go down. There are only a handful of teams that would sign a guy to a 1 year, 10 million dollar contract. They wouldn't sign two guys to that much. Once those 3 or 4 teams have their top guys, the bargains start flowing. The average players would really get cheap.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Series Talk: ECQF: Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs- Latest: Transplanted Caper
Upcoming events
-
TO ADVANCE SEMIFINAL - Man City vs Chelsea - at Wembley Stadium, LondonWagers: 4Staked: $2,402.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
