To the "Pro-PA" crowd...

[oil slick]

i happen to think the PA would make more money if they were to fight for a higher floor and not worry so much about cap levels most teams wont get to.

what will make the PA more money, a 35m floor or a 70m cap ?

clearly, neither one will happen, but given a choice, the PA will make more money for its members with the higher floor.

dr

As pro-owner guy, I'd be all for that. It would force the NHL to have meaningful revenue sharing, which is one area that they are severely lacking.

 

[GKJ]

I seriously don't care anymore. Anything is better than this.



If the players are giving back $7M per team it is up to the owners not to give it back. The owners are the reason we're in this mess, not the players. The players don't pay themselves. If the 24% rollback was so miniscule, then the owners would take it out in order to get other things.

However if either side was serious about settling this, it would be done by now. Both sides need new leadership because it is apparent that neither side knows what the hell they're doing.


The owners and players obviously don't care about us, so I'll worry about them when the real issues of the game are the ones on the ice.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Not trying to be condecending, but I have to ask...

Being as you are "pro-player" or "pro-union," what is your solution to solving this problem?

Do you continue to hope the owners are lying, or do you believe that the 42.5 million was their breaking point? It is at least evident to me that they were obviously lying about their 31 million cap (930$ million) and 38 million, but their "final" offer at 42.5 mill before canceling the season to me was the most they could give. From here on in, the offer is going to drop.

So I have to ask, does the PA keep on fighting for a no-cap? (Even though they have caved for that once already.) Dispite losing interest, contracts and future revenue, do you... hope for a higher cap?

If your in charge, what do you do?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If it were me, putting on my "Pro-PA" cap on, I'd say try to negotiate as much percentage as possible to a LINKED cap (~57%) to get the floor cap (53%). As well, to generate MORE revenue to UP the cap (since salaries are tied to revenue) I'd want open access to the owners books, and fight tooth and nail for all the income the owners bring in. I'd also want a voice in helping market the game, to ensure max revenue to maximize the cap. This "partnership" could be a win-win for the union and the league if they actually worked together (rather then drown each other in this lockout) and the players could better help market the game with the league's help.

IMO They would rather keep a hard figure of 36mil knowing the NHLPA would never except it, (just like they juggled the numbers for the 42.5mil offer).... declare in impasse and hope the NLRB will see it their way, all so they can start the season with replacement players. Big gamble in getting the NLRB to see it the NHL's way IMO.
So.... No link- true cap of 42.5mil. Let the NHL do a much better job in how it markets itself, as it has done a poor job in the last 10 years, each owner needs to commit to reduce it's 'other' operating cost and things will turn around in the 05/06 season for the league....maybe, depends on fans too.

 

[mr gib]

Not trying to be condecending, but I have to ask...

Being as you are "pro-player" or "pro-union," what is your solution to solving this problem?

Do you continue to hope the owners are lying, or do you believe that the 42.5 million was their breaking point? It is at least evident to me that they were obviously lying about their 31 million cap (930$ million) and 38 million, but their "final" offer at 42.5 mill before canceling the season to me was the most they could give. From here on in, the offer is going to drop.

So I have to ask, does the PA keep on fighting for a no-cap? (Even though they have caved for that once already.) Dispite losing interest, contracts and future revenue, do you... hope for a higher cap?

If your in charge, what do you do?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If it were me, putting on my "Pro-PA" cap on, I'd say try to negotiate as much percentage as possible to a LINKED cap (~57%) to get the floor cap (53%). As well, to generate MORE revenue to UP the cap (since salaries are tied to revenue) I'd want open access to the owners books, and fight tooth and nail for all the income the owners bring in. I'd also want a voice in helping market the game, to ensure max revenue to maximize the cap. This "partnership" could be a win-win for the union and the league if they actually worked together (rather then drown each other in this lockout) and the players could better help market the game with the league's help.

goodenow was right though - all the number's you spout are moot because the league had no intention of playing the season - everytime it appeared something was close bettman started ramming another unacceptable item up the pa's hoop -

 

[futurcorerock]

And how is this post is relevant to the thread?

Hm, i dont know... if you look at the title of the thread, it says "to the pro-pa crowd"

Usually if you put cognitive thought together you can spawn debate, that's my debate there.

 

[Winger98]

The problem with the 24 percent rollback is twofold.

First, at this point any rollback would affect fewer than half (perhaps less than a third?) of all the players. So any claim that it would reduce team payrolls by 24 percent, or any other significant figure, is simply wrong.

Second, and more importantly, it contains no significant mechanism to prevent salaries from again spiraling upward at an unsustainable rate. It's luxury-tax system was (20 cents on the dollar) plainly would not act as a major disincentive. Also, the plan calls for any luxury-tax revenue generated to be fed back into the player salary pool, thus serving as an inflating pressure on salaries.

Along the same line of your first point, though, I think the hope would be that any new contracts wouldn't need to be rolled back to fit whatever new parameters are in place. So while the rollback wouldn't effect current UFAs looking for contracts, the new CBA itself would act as the lowering device on contract offers. It is certainly not the gesture it was when it was first proposed, but it's something I think could act as a fair piece of the CBA solution.

Your second point I agree with nearly entirely. Other mechanisms would have to be put into place and the tax dramatically sharpened. 20 cents on the dollar is useless.

 

[mr gib]

....... under 290 players this upcoming season, less than half of that number next season.

And the players 'solution' is fairly obvious. They will strike and take their chances with the NLRB. It became fairly obvious when they rejected the $42.5 million unlinked offer and then played games with Mario and Gretzky that was their strategy all along.

selective memory - the deal was rejected on other issue's not that number

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The problem with the 24 percent rollback is twofold.

First, at this point any rollback would affect fewer than half (perhaps less than a third?) of all the players. So any claim that it would reduce team payrolls by 24 percent, or any other significant figure, is simply wrong.

No, I think that is simply wrong. The 24% would cut a huge portion off of the players that are under contract now, and that decrease would also have an affect on everyone without contracts. More of an affect on RFA's than UFA's, but overall the affect wouldn't be as minimal as you make it seem.

If you don't want to believe it from me, take if from Bettman. Apply the same reasoning to the rollback as Bettman applied to an increase in the cap. He said the cap acts as a "magnet", and all salaries are universally raised by a certain amount as the cap is raised. The same goes for a rollback. Beyond the players under contract that would lose 1/4 of their salaries, the "universe" of salaries would also be decreased by a large amount...resulting in all FA's signing contracts that will be lower than what they would have gotten under the old CBA. Yes, some players might only end up getting 5% or 10% less, but overall it would save the league a ton of money.

And when you factor in that there is a hard cap, and most teams that would pay UFA's more than their market price can't, because they are already at the cap (NYR, Leafs, Philly, NJ, DET etc)....I don't think that current FA's are going to be able to sign big deals when the league comes back. Most likely, when the first games are played almost all players will be in line with the 24% rollback.

 

[Sammy*]

goodenow was right though - all the number's you spout are moot because the league had no intention of playing the season - everytime it appeared something was close bettman started ramming another unacceptable item up the pa's hoop -

Oooh, we have a mind reader, never mind your recollection of "facts" is laugable.

 

[X0ssbar]

I am not pro-player at all in this situation but if I were Bob this is the basic framework I would suggest:

Hard Cap: 45 mil
Luxury Tax: $1 for $1 tax from 40 - 45 mil
Salary Floor: 25 mil

The catch here is that what once league revenues reach the 2003 levels (2.1 billion) the framework would switch to a percentage based system. Couple of ideas for figuring out what percentage the players should get:

1. A negotiated percentage floor and ceiling.

2. An average of what the other 3 major team sports pay out in player salaries to get the percentage ceiling. Not sure how to average out a floor so that would probably have to be negotiated.

Obviously you'd need a 3rd party to audit all books to make this work. Also, figuring out the true numbers from the other 3 team sports would certainly be a challenge if possible at all.

 

[Icey]

As a pro-player supporter I think they should take the $37.5 non-linked offer, but it must include the a floor cap. Not because I think its a good offer, because I really don't, but because its the best they are going to get.

BUT I would negotiate everything else in the PA's favor. Bill Daley has said all along that they need a cap and they are going to get a cap, but EVERYTHING else is negotiatable. Negotiate the qualifying offers back to 100% (not the 110%), negotiate the arbitration rights so its fair for both sides, get rid of the clause about hold-outs who aren't signed by 14 days after training camp starts are ineligible for the rest of the season, and force the NHL the come up with a legitimate revenue sharing plan, not the "we intend to share revenue" plan they have put forth so far. Lets see how serious Daley was when he made that comment.

And in regards to the 24% rollback, what I find most humorous about it is that everyone says it won't work -- owners, Bettman and every pro-owner person on this board, yet it is included in every proposal. If it won't work then it shouldn't be included in any proposal right? But yet it is part of every NHL that has been proposed since December 9th. Could it be that it actually could work and nobody wants to admit it.

 

[mr gib]

Oooh, we have a mind reader, never mind your recollection of "facts" is laugable.

its been well documented that king gary and the merry men were gonna sit it out unless they got the home run deal

 

[theoil]

its been well documented that king gary and the merry men were gonna sit it out unless they got the home run deal

source. don't post 'well documented' without sources.

 

[Sammy*]

its been well documented that king gary and the merry men were gonna sit it out unless they got the home run deal

:lol :lol
What documents there Bud?

 

[mr gib]

source. don't post 'well documented' without sources.

al strachan - larry brooks -

 

[theoil]

And in regards to the 24% rollback, what I find most humorous about it is that everyone says it won't work -- owners, Bettman and every pro-owner person on this board, yet it is included in every proposal. If it won't work then it shouldn't be included in any proposal right? But yet it is part of every NHL that has been proposed since December 9th. Could it be that it actually could work and nobody wants to admit it.

Just because they keep rubbing Gary's face in it doesn't mean they won't take it. This is just the league playing hardball. It was offered without request - fine, we'll take it. But we still want what we asked for. It's really that simple.

 

[mr gib]

:lol :lol
What documents there Bud?

you guys are as bad as the BOG - semantic's and brow beating

 

[labatt50]

selective memory - the deal was rejected on other issue's not that number[/QUOTE

In regard to who has selective memory,it was rejected on that number, they didn't even look at the other issues until they coerced Gretzky and Lemieux to their "uncancel the season" meeting.

 

[mr gib]

selective memory - the deal was rejected on other issue's not that number[/QUOTE

In regard to who has selective memory,it was rejected on that number, they didn't even look at the other issues until they coerced Gretzky and Lemieux to their "uncancel the season" meeting.

have fun - go lonny go

 

[labatt50]

have fun - go lonny go

And Lonny is???????

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If I were the PA...

- keep the 24% rollback on the table
- propose a $28 million salary floor and a $38 million hard cap
- propose meaningful revenue sharing, close to 50% of all revenues should be put into a pool.

- after 3 years (of this 6 year CBA) the hard cap would be raised to $45 million and the floor would be changed from $28 million to 53% of a team's agreed-upon net revenues. So 53% of whatever revenues are left after a team has incurred it's "other costs". Also, the highest the floor can be is $35 million.

The first 3 years allows the teams to get back on their feet and for revenues to get back to a normal level. The 24% saves a lot of money, the revenue sharing helps a ton of small market teams who are going to be hit hard by the lockout and the $38 million cap makes sure no big market teams can offset spending while some other markets are extremely weak after the lockout. When the league comes back, all teams are going to have to be finanially competative right away in order to get fans back, and that's why the lowest and highest spenders are only seperated by $10 million to start. Also, the $28 million guarantees the players get at least a decent amount, and don't have their teams paying $15 million payrolls because revenues are so low as a result of the owners lockout.

The revenue sharing is the most important thing...it is good for the players as far as making more money available to them under the cap, it is good for fans and it is good for markets who need that money. It's also vital in order for small market teams to meet the $28 million floor and remain competative over the long term. The NHL NEEDS revenue sharing.

After 3 years, the cap would go up to $45 and the floor would go, in most cases where the floor matters, down to 53% of agreed-upon net revenues. So really a tradeoff...players get a higher cap and owners get a lower floor. There really is no reason for a permanent $30-something hard cap...most teams can spend beyond that and still make a profit and it's just not fair to anyone when the Leafs owners are pulling in $20 million in profit in a season. So once the league is back on track the cap will be raised to a very fair $45 million. Changing the floor will allow teams who are in real trouble, despite the revenue sharing, to spend as low as they need to...but at the same time they are still paying a fair amount to their roster.

 

[theoil]

al strachan - larry brooks -

Oh my. If this is what you count as sources I am afraid there is no hope for a rational discussion. Thanks anyway but I will move on.

 

[mr gib]

Oh my. If this is what you count as sources I am afraid there is no hope for a rational discussion. Thanks anyway but I will move on.

sorry about that - i forgot eklund - just kidding - let's just say the two sides are pretty dug in -

it's just to bad from an idealistic perspetive that bob and gary just couldn't - work it out -

 

[SuperUnknown]

The abstract example that you bring up actually works against the NHL. If in so many other industries the companies go through the periods of red ink (which is overwhelmingly the case during any business expansion), then how come the NHL wants to change the system? What is it that would prevent the black ink to come back "under current CBA"? The market does have certain inertia, but it doesn't dictate, it adjusts. And the 24% rollback would take care of the bulk of the adjustment (if it is necessary) to put NHL in black ink.

When your industry sector is not doing well, you're going to change the way you operate to come back to profit. It's often called restructuring and part of it is either reducing wages or cutting off jobs. The company will go through the red ink while they're restructuring (and when they have a CBA, they'll have to wait until it expires).

As to the market, in a capitalism setup, it dictates. What adjusts is the market variables. The NHL is a prime example of an industry adjusting to wages too high (a CBA that's too player friendly).

As to the 24% rollback, it's a bit of a joke. How many players are under contract? 30-40% tops? That 24% is thus 24% out of 30-40% and a one-time charge. There's got to be only one GM that gives to a UFA or an RFA the "old" wages and everything's started back on the current trend. As well, if it was enough to make sure the system would be back on track, the players wouldn't be afraid to guarantee it.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

BUT I would negotiate everything else in the PA's favor. <snip>...negotiate the arbitration rights so its fair for both sides

This is contradictory -- since the arbitration process is so incredibly lopsided toward the players as it now stands, to make it "fair" would definitely not be in the PA's favor.

Arbitration should be fair -- doesn't matter how it works, as long as it works exactly the same for both sides. If the players can choose arbitration X number of times, the team should be allowed the exact same number of cracks at it on the exact same terms the players get. That's "fair."

The 100% qualifying is still too unfair to the owners, IMO, especially if the PA is going to fight to have arbitration remain lopsided in its favor. I see no reason why an employer should be forced to keep a player at his full existing salary if his performance doesn't justify it. 85% qualifying seems a lot more fair, it could certainly be stipulated that the player has the option to go to arbitration if he feels he's being slighted.