TSN Reporting hard/soft cap of 42 Mil rejected by PA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
I applaud the owners. They are setting an example for other sports. And for those who are saying otherwise, no, the players have not moved from their position, nor have the owners for that matter. One side or the other is going to have to give. If the players accept a Cap in principle but want a higher number than $38 million that is movement. Their other moves were band-aids that do not address the real long term problems.

If the owners hold out and win their Cap, I suspect that we could see other dominos fall, including eventually the almighty baseball union, and in the end that will be good for the fans everywhere as you will have sports righting themselves after decades of allowing the sports to become farces in more and more cities, and we the biggest clowns of all for paying outrageous sums to watch. Tell me the last time the Yankees or Boston missed the baseball post season entirely? How about Detroit or Colorado in hockey? That means that each year a third of the musical chairs are already taken in baseball in the American League. Hockey only avoids this by letting half the teams in, but the finals seem to have the top spenders in more years than not so the problem is the same.

I admit freely the owners are no friends of the fans, but in this case our desires dovetail. A fixed sport. If it enables owners to make a profit too where they can not now, I can live with that.
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,210
DR said:
no, not good enough

25m floor ..... 40 soft ceiling ... 48 hard cap .. luxury tax of 1:1 from 40 to 48.

but who cares what you and me think .. the owners are more interested in manouvering than in solutions.

dr

The report is the floor was at 32m, with a ceiling at 42m. You think the players will accept a deal with ceiling of 48m. I don't think they would, and would probably reject it quite quickly.

The owners have to offer a proposal with meaningful revenue sharing, and a form of arbitration. The players must accept linkage between salaries and revenues. If the owners and players aren't willing to do this, then the season will be cancelled.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
go kim johnsson said:
Well, let's see the players offered to give back 24% of their salary, change the entry level format and change the arbitration format. They're making serious concessions. What's wrong with the proposal floating around this board of a combined soft cap and large cap? Owners still get a hard cap, with linkage, players get their luxury tax. What's so hard about this? The fact that the owners want one thing and it is non-neogeotiable? That's just being stubborn and stupid and if this is what the owners really want, their way or no way, then they were playing this all year to not play this season and they shouldn't entertain us by making the same proposal over and over again.

This is why I believe there is a lot more to what we know and no one is being told anything to report as such)

Truly what is the difference between the two sides negotiation tactics thus far? There is nothing. BOTH have moved within their own NON-NEGOTIABLE framework. Yes the fact is the owners want one thing that is non-negotiable (a cost certainty/linkage CBA)...everything within that outline can be negotiated. But the fact is also the players want one thing that is non-negotiable (a no cost certainty/no linkage CBA)...everything within their outline can be negotiated. BOTH are being stubborn but it's the nature of collective bargaining. In the end the side that has the greatest lose and does not have the leverage is the one that has to bend and accept the others framework. It is apparent to me and most that that side is the NHLPA and not the owners.

I see a PA offer that fails to address the inflationary aspects of the system effectively and fails to have a trigger that reflects the health of the league (good or bad). I see a NHL offer that all but guarantees very respectable salaries and a guranteed percentage of revenues well in line with the North American sports industry. I don't see the PA offer tempting many on the owners side. I do see the owners offer tempting many on the players side.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Finnigan said:
The report is the floor was at 32m, with a ceiling at 42m. You think the players will accept a deal with ceiling of 48m. I don't think they would, and would probably reject it quite quickly.

The owners have to offer a proposal with meaningful revenue sharing, and a form of arbitration. The players must accept linkage between salaries and revenues. If the owners and players aren't willing to do this, then the season will be cancelled.

Yep.

The owners have said from day one of this that they're getting a salary cap and I've seen absolutely nothing to lead me to believe they're going to budge from this position.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
In court?

Son of Steinbrenner said:
The owners have now proved they do not want a season played. This is not the creative proposal that daly was talking about this is more of the same. Wow they went up 3 million dollars from there last proposal a month ago

This thing is going to end up in court and the owners are going to have a tough time winning.

What a shame but at least baseball season is not to far away.

Why would they have a hard time winning?

The league lost hundreds of millions of dollars over the last CBA. Of course it has to be changed. Any court would agree to these actualities.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
tantalum said:
Truly what is the difference between the two sides negotiation tactics thus far? There is nothing. BOTH have moved within their own NON-NEGOTIABLE framework. Yes the fact is the owners want one thing that is non-negotiable (a cost certainty/linkage CBA)...everything within that outline can be negotiated. But the fact is also the players want one thing that is non-negotiable (a no cost certainty/no linkage CBA)...everything within their outline can be negotiated. BOTH are being stubborn but it's the nature of collective bargaining. In the end the side that has the greatest lose and does not have the leverage is the one that has to bend and accept the others framework. It is apparent to me and most that that side is the NHLPA and not the owners.

The NHLPA should have recognized long ago that they had no leverage in this thing and made the best deal they could. There are a lot of concessions they could have got, including earlier free agency ... and the right to work where you want is every bit as important a right as not having to work under a salary cap system.

I'm sure a lot of observers are like me -- not really having a dog in the fight (I'm mildly pro-owner), but seeing clearly the realities of who does and doesn't have leverage. If you do, what you see most in the players' stand is simple stubborness and that causes you to become anti-player.

You're not going to win this one, players. Get over it and sue for peace.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Finnigan said:
The report is the floor was at 32m, with a ceiling at 42m. You think the players will accept a deal with ceiling of 48m. I don't think they would, and would probably reject it quite quickly.

The owners have to offer a proposal with meaningful revenue sharing, and a form of arbitration. The players must accept linkage between salaries and revenues. If the owners and players aren't willing to do this, then the season will be cancelled.


If the players accept a Cap . . .at higher numbers perhaps . . with meaningful revenue sharing, do you think that the owner's would bite? Or is that when the fractures will form. And does anyone know whether Bettman's powers granted are enough to overide objections of some big markets and accept that offer?
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
go kim johnsson said:
Well, let's see the players offered to give back 24% of their salary, change the entry level format and change the arbitration format. They're making serious concessions. What's wrong with the proposal floating around this board of a combined soft cap and large cap? Owners still get a hard cap, with linkage, players get their luxury tax. What's so hard about this? The fact that the owners want one thing and it is non-neogeotiable? That's just being stubborn and stupid and if this is what the owners really want, their way or no way, then they were playing this all year to not play this season and they shouldn't entertain us by making the same proposal over and over again.

This is why I believe there is a lot more to what we know and no one is being told anything to report as such)

the mistake you make is that if the owners made the same kind of concessions that the players made with a hard salary cap in it, you know as well as I do that players would reject it out of hand...yes? Seems from listening to your point of view that only the owners should come off of their main demand.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Makaveli said:
Heres the way it works. If the union gives a offer and some owners like it, but Bettman does not recommend it all he needs is 8 votes to have the deal rejected. If he accepts then well the deal is pretty much done, I don't think Owners will overrule him on that one.


Damn . . . . if that is truly the case, the Owners must be deadly serious, as it is almost a given that the players will include that in any final deal. For Detroit, Toronto and NYR to agree to giving Bettman that power speaks volumes. And that actually is what set football up for its run of success. They made the deal to share almost all revenues, especially television revenues, in the 50's when none could forsee the enormous money that television could bring. You would be very hard pressed to get such sharing in todays world if big team owners got most of the pie already. Hockey in a way is in the same boat, television revenues currently suck. If they get this actually done, I would bet on some very strong growth. The NFL is not that much greater of a sport, I definately think the fact that even in Cinncinatti, year in year out fans can see significant FA signings and have hope makes a big difference.

Again, very cool if true.
 

dougd

Registered User
Jul 20, 2002
619
135
fortmcmurray ab can
SuperNintendoChalmrs said:
username: Scotty Bowman

password: IndebtedtoCanadiansportsmediaforglossingovermysordidrecordwhilerunningtheSabresfranchisethanksguysIoweyouone



:yo: :teach: :joker:

C'mon, that's not fair. If Scotty would've star players in BUF like he had in MTL, PGH, Det and the almost bye situation in St Louis in the late 60's, I'm sure the Sabres would've done a lot better.
 

dem

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
6,732
2,584
Apparently Detroit is pretty deadset on a cap. I'd imagine New Jersey would be too seeing as they hardly keep that ship afloat after winning Stanley cups.
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,210
Jaded-Fan said:
If the players accept a Cap . . .at higher numbers perhaps . . with meaningful revenue sharing, do you think that the owner's would bite? Or is that when the fractures will form. And does anyone know whether Bettman's powers granted are enough to overide objections of some big markets and accept that offer?

Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners out 30, unlike in 1995 when he needed 14 out of 26, so he has a lot of power. There probably would be divisions in the ownership because the large markets don't want to share a lot of their revenues with the smaller markets. IMO, the players don't want to feel they are saving the smaller markets by accepting linkage and a cap, without the 30 owners helping each other out. Would the players accept at cap at around 65% if there was meaningful revenues sharing I don't know, but there is only one way to find out, and that is for the owners to make this type of proposal.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Finnigan said:
Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners out 30, unlike in 1995 when he needed 14 out of 26, so he has a lot of power. There probably would be divisions in the ownership because the large markets don't want to share a lot of their revenues with the smaller markets. IMO, the players don't want to feel they are saving the smaller markets by accepting linkage and a cap, without the 30 owners helping each other out. Would the players accept at cap at around 65% if there was meaningful revenues sharing I don't know, but there is only one way to find out, and that is for the owners to make this type of proposal.


Or the players to do so . . . I can not see it coming from the Owners. But from the players? It would only help them because if combined with a floor will keep the average salaries up, helping the rank and file players.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
Pepper said:
They have increased their offer by more than 33%, I'd say that's pretty considerable concession.

Anyway, whether league has moved or not is irrelevant considering that NHLPA hasn't made a single meaningful offer in the first place.

24% roll back is nothing? :lol How much do you make a year? 50K? $12000 is nothing?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
They dont need

Makaveli said:
65% is a ludicrous number for linkage. If the NHL had a huge TV contract, and a growing fan base then it would be fare. For a league having revenues in a year what the NFL TV contract pays, 54% the owners have offered is reasonable.

I suppourt the owners 100%, but I cannot understand how they are offering a deal with no revenue sharing. How in the hell are the Flames or Oilers gonna get out of the red?

An agreement with the players to share revenues amongst themselves.

Why would they put in an inflationary mechanism in a CBA which needs to address cost certainty and competative balance?
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,210
Makaveli said:
65% is a ludicrous number for linkage. If the NHL had a huge TV contract, and a growing fan base then it would be fare. For a league having revenues in a year what the NFL TV contract pays, 54% the owners have offered is reasonable.

I suppourt the owners 100%, but I cannot understand how they are offering a deal with no revenue sharing. How in the hell are the Flames or Oilers gonna get out of the red?

When I said cap I meant at the very top, so with $2 billion it would equal out to $43.3 million per team. I think the NHL should be able to raise the linkage to 56% or 57% of all revenues going to players. AT 57% the team salary would be $38 million and then have floor at 50% which would equal $33.3 million.

In the NHL's proposal they stated they would be offering meaningful revenue sharing, but they did not expalin how they were going to do it. This is a major issue the owners must define to the players, because without it I don't think there will be a deal.
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Damn . . . . if that is truly the case, the Owners must be deadly serious, as it is almost a given that the players will include that in any final deal. For Detroit, Toronto and NYR to agree to giving Bettman that power speaks volumes. And that actually is what set football up for its run of success. They made the deal to share almost all revenues, especially television revenues, in the 50's when none could forsee the enormous money that television could bring. You would be very hard pressed to get such sharing in todays world if big team owners got most of the pie already. Hockey in a way is in the same boat, television revenues currently suck. If they get this actually done, I would bet on some very strong growth. The NFL is not that much greater of a sport, I definately think the fact that even in Cinncinatti, year in year out fans can see significant FA signings and have hope makes a big difference.

Again, very cool if true.

Why wouldn't the rich teams want a cap? For the Leafs it gives ownership a licence to print money if they don't have to spend 60-70 million in player salaries. Hell, they made an assload of money even with a monster payroll. You don't think the Teachers would love an increase in profit?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
syc said:
24% roll back is nothing? :lol How much do you make a year? 50K? $12000 is nothing?


I think that I read an anlysis that said that it only covered existing contracts. The teams structured many contracts to expire this year so far fewer contracts than usual are out there. Of the ones remaining almost none (under 10% if I remember) go beyond one year, same reasons. So the players offered a roll back for basically one year, on far less than 100% of contracts, and a rollback on less than 10% of contracts in the next year and those following. If the owners had been idiots enough to accept this farce, which is in fact a NOTHING proposal, they would have had it bite them in the a$s as new contracts came in and there was no restriction on spiraling salaries in place, the restrictions that we lost a year of hockey over.

Get it?
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,210
TSN is now reporting the same cap details

$32m-$42m, with 54% going to the players.
The players problem with this, they see it as a triple cap because if the teams together spend more then 54%, then the $42m cap will be reduced.

$6m cap on individual players salaries

Salary arbitration - limited to an increase of 25%, could be for 1,2 or 3 years. Teams could also bring players to arbitration

Player's aren't pleased with the revenue sharing system, no details.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=112913&hubName=nhl
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Finnigan said:
TSN is now reporting the same cap details

$32m-$42m, with 54% going to the players.
The players problem with this, they see it as a triple cap because if the teams together spend more then 54%, then the $42m cap will be reduced.

$6m cap on individual players salaries

Salary arbitration - limited to an increase of 25%, could be for 1,2 or 3 years. Teams could also bring players to arbitration

Player's aren't pleased with the revenue sharing system, no details.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=112913&hubName=nhl


Now what is so bad with that proposal that you could not even counter but pulled out of the meeting entirely? How anyone can support the players in this is beyond me.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Finnigan said:
TSN is now reporting the same cap details

$32m-$42m, with 54% going to the players.
The players problem with this, they see it as a triple cap because if the teams together spend more then 54%, then the $42m cap will be reduced.

$6m cap on individual players salaries

Salary arbitration - limited to an increase of 25%, could be for 1,2 or 3 years. Teams could also bring players to arbitration

Player's aren't pleased with the revenue sharing system, no details.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=112913&hubName=nhl

We better read it closely and get used to it, because this is the CBA that's going to be in effect next September when the NHL invites the players back for the new season. It's basically the NBA with a hard cap on top ... the NBA, like this offer, has a provision that the players have to escrow money if the total league expenditure exceeds X%.

The floor actually makes it more likely that a bunch of players will bail on the union then. If a 3d liner's playing with a bunch of AHLers and his team has to spend a certain amount, the 3d liner's going to make a bunch more money than if he were sharing the floor with real NHLers. Not to mention that for a lot of teams, $32 million is a higher payroll than they have now ... you don't think Predators or Wild players will want to go back to play for more money?
 

red devil

Registered User
Oct 14, 2004
8,724
12,210
I want to know what type of revenue sharing was offered. This is an issue I do agree with the players because the larger markets will have to help out the smaller markets.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
i've gotta say that i am impressed with the owners backbone but what should i expect when they have their collective back to the wall and the players holding the game hostage? these guys have shown that the league has lost millions even if you go by the forbes report it is still MILLIONS, the players should be thankful that there is even still a league. i was a business owner and let me tell you if it started trending toward monthly or yearly losses i would definitely shut it down permanently or until i modified my operations to where i could show a profit. Businessmen are not in business to lose or break even but to make a little! it is not that complicated. i also don't think the league would stand a chance w/ the NLRB especially in the states where limits that would be set on what you can earn would be frowned upon. i do not know about canada but corporations in the financail situation the NHL is in would have already filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and re-organized--and when a corporation does that here they get to negotiate new deals with their vendors. there are numerous examples of companies doing that here and coming out in a much stronger poition the most obvious example would be K-Mart. even the major airlines have gotten major concessions from the unions to keep the company solvent even the pilots. The players just do not get that they are killing their job market. and another thing i've heard rumored is that donald fehr is advising the nhlpa, if this is the case we will all be saying what a good guy goodenow is if the players are listening to fehr. but the main difference in this negotiation and fehr's other ones is that fehr has always gone to war against a league that was making money not losing their tail. either way if fehr has wedged his foot in the door it is going to be along time before we'll see any hockey as a matter of fact this would make the owners consider some drastic options and if fehr is involved i can understand it unifying any fractures that may have been cracking among the owners. i just read in this thread the the leafs, wings and rangers are all standing firm. i do not think there is an owner among the 30 that will stand to be dictated to by donald fehr.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->