Tawnos said:Another concept I've played around with in my mind as a benefit to the players actual salary is to not count re-signing money towards the Cap.
Let's say player A signs his rookie contract for the rookie cap, lets say $900k. When he becomes an RFA, any money his team offers up to $900k doesn't count against the cap. If he signs for $1.5million, $600k goes against the Cap. Say this contract expires at age 25. Player A is still an RFA. He re-signs for $2million. $1.5million doesnt count against the cap and $500k does. etc etc. This goes for UFAs too. If you sign your own, it doesn't count against the Cap. The reason I toss this idea out is that I think it's got too much inflation.
Boltsfan2029 said: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.
Icey said:Arbitration as it was proposed in the last offer was not in favor of the PA it was in favor of owners, so why is it contradictory to say they should negotitate this in their favor?
I said to make it fair for both the owners and players not lopsided to the players.
I don't see how a 100% qualifiying offer is unfair to the owners. An owner isn't forced to keep a player at his full existing salary if they are not happy with his performance. The owner can just not qualify the player. Why would you want a player that you are not happy with their performance? How many owners are saying "yeah, lets sign that underachieving Player X". I would be not many.
And how many oweners do you think will qualify a player at more than your proposed 85%? My guess zero to none.
Icey said:The owners need to stop complaining about arbitration and qualifying offers and exercise their rights. If they don't like a players performance don't qualify him. If he goes to arbitration and the award is too high, walk away.
BitterEnd said:Exactly, so when do the players start giving back to the game that has seen them make more money than most people will make in a lifetime?
Icey said:So when your annual review comes up next year and your boss tells you instead of you getting a raise, they are going to pay you only 85% of what you earned last year. That will be okay with you?
.
This is laughable. Do you think the players "give back" really matters when the "give back's" net effect at the end of the day is that the owners still lose money, only less than before? Do you thing the owners should have to wait for a reasonable system to be put in place until the next CBA so that the "give back" isnt so shocking to the poor old players?GregStack said:If this is the sentiment by supposed hockey fans, then I say never. The players have already given back far more than they should have in there first rollback offer in my oppinion, let alone when they said they'd take a 50 million cap.
If you, as a so-called "fan" can't see they are giving back then I suggest you stop posting about, watching, and supporting (if you ever did...) hockey. Maybe when all the fans are willing to pay to watch teams play things will be different.
Splatman Phanutier said:Yes, I'm sure everyone knows well about that 24%. (I mean, how can we not?)
Besides the fact that it doesn't solve anything long term, exactly how much effect will the 24% have? How many players are under contract? Because those are the only ones that will take the 24% hit. With all the UFA's right now, that 24% is meaningless.
Really?shveik said:The purpose of the 24% rollback is to provide the fresh start to the salary market. As was mentioned, the GMs are diving into the red ink because the market sets a certain salary levels, and the adjustment to the new economic conditions is slow. The rollback affects the slowest component of the market adjustment - the long term contracts. The new contracts are then negotiated in the new 24% reduced salary market. If the teams are indeed in the red as they claim, the market will stay there, or slowly creep even lower if the 24% is not enough. If they are fudging the numbers, the salaries will creep up again from there.
I can understand how the increased demand due to the expansion, and the Bettman instilled expectation of the NHL to become a major sport in US has destabilized the market. But there is no excuse if the GMs cannot right the ship using the 24% rollback as a start.
futurcorerock said: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.
Sammy said:This is laughable. Do you think the players "give back" really matters when the "give back's" net effect at the end of the day is that the owners still lose money, only less than before? Do you thing the owners should have to wait for a reasonable system to be put in place until the next CBA so that the "give back" isnt so shocking to the poor old players?
You NHLPA apologist's talk about a "give back" like the owners should be giving back as well, notwithstanding they have been "giving back" to the tune of billions of dollars over the las decade.
GregStack said:The "give back" as you put it does not solely make them lose "less" money. It makes it so they have a shot at undoing their previous errors. The rollback could have worked if the owners simply said "no, you aren't worth this much money, try to get it from another team" whenthe contract was too rich for their blood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.
T@T said:
Without restrictions there will always be greedy owners willing to overspend and force the others and if they didn't the PA would claim collusion.
Anyone with a brain can tell that rollback was crap and it would have worked for 1.5 seasons and the league would have been right back to losing millions.
I'm starting to think some of Goodenow coolaid was givin out last season in the big markets.Its allways big-market fans that are blind of the real issues and problems.
Timmy said:That does happen.
Usually, though, in the real world, if a boss is unhappy with you or can't afford to keep you, he simply fires you.
In hockey, the owner usually had to give up something to obtain the player (used a draft pick, traded for him, etc). So by letting him walk, you're getting nothing in return for something you had to sacrifice to get.
And the 85% QO is appropriate, because performance may change. This is a results-orientated business. If you're a broker whose commissions were down 20% over last fiscal, don't wade into your manager's office demanding the same bonus you got last year.
Because its needed to get salaries to below the cap.Icey said:I'll ask the same question again. If the rollback was crap and wouldn't work why is it still part of the NHL's proposal? Guess its not such crap as everyone wants to make it out to be.
Tell me, a 24% rollback that will effect about 30% of the players (amounting to a 7% overall change) in the next year & about 10% or so in the year thereafter(amounting to about a 3% overall change) will have an effect? :lol :lolGregStack said:The "give back" as you put it does not solely make them lose "less" money. It makes it so they have a shot at undoing their previous errors. The rollback could have worked if the owners simply said "no, you aren't worth this much money, try to get it from another team" whenthe contract was too rich for their blood. I'm sorry if you can't see that, it's not my fault you're blinded by bias.
Of course some owners are greedy,it's human nature to want to win. Problem is,the NHL is a gate driven league and simpley will fall apart if all teams don't play under the same rules.Icey said:So its the owners who are greedy and not the players?
I'll ask the same question again. If the rollback was crap and wouldn't work why is it still part of the NHL's proposal? Guess its not such crap as everyone wants to make it out to be.
Splatman Phanutier said:Really?
Lets take Jarome Iginla as an example. He's currently a FA and made 7.5$ last playing season. Now, hypothetically, if he were to make 8$ million the next season, under a 24% rollback, that would set him at $6 million. Do you think Iginla would be willing to sign for 6$ million? Or do you think he'd hold out for me?
Markets won't be set on low figures - they are typically set on high figures. You think Don Meehan or other player agents would look to Martin St Louis and ask for that $ amount? Or would they look at Peter Forsberg and start asking for those $?
I just don't see the rollback having an effect on the market value. To me, it would just decrease salaries - nothings stopping players from holding out for more, and thus rendering the rollback almost useless.