TSN reports proposal was made today (2.9.05) by the NHL and PA rejected .

[417]

Of course not.

Suppose they implemented a trial system which rolled over into a cap if it didn't work. What incentive would the owners have to make the trial system work? The owners would clearly ensure the failure of the system to get their hard cap.
Wake up. This proposal, whether or not it existed, is nothing but a PR stunt.

That's collusion, i'm not legal expert, but it smells like collusion to me, which means that the owners can't do that...

fact is, owners are at least willing to give it a try, which is alot more than what the players have done...

anyways, the NHL has always said, and I agree that that 24% rollback is a joke, and now the NHL is saying, just to prove it to you, we'll try it out, if and when it dosen't work, then it's ou turn, I see nothing wrong with that

 

[waffledave]

Except that the owners would now have incentive to let costs get out of control.

The players could always just accept less money.

They won't do that though.

 

[Greschner4]

I agree. By rejecting this, I think they are in effect saying we have no faith in our own proposal.

As for people saying that the owners would not allow it to work is MORONIC. If the details of the proposal were strong and detailed enough..its not about the owners not allowing it. They would have to follow it. If it works...its works.....if not...it doesn't. If the players were smart enough to structure it so there are little to no loopholes...then it should work.

I wonder what the league offered as the determining details for deciding if its working or not....that would be of interest if I was a ProPA person.

But c'mon....this is getting idiotic for the players....

I agree that the definition of "not working" is important, but I never thought I'd see the day that a union would reject its own proposal.

Uneffing believable.

 

[417]

I didn't know the players pay themselves.

No they don't, but their performances, or sometimes lack their of, determines what pay they receive, how many times have we seen players put up a good year the year before they become UFA's only to bomb the next year after they sign their deal, so what? that's the owners fault too...it's a 2 way street

 

[Greschner4]

The players could always just accept less money.

They won't do that though.

Exactly. If the PA thought the owners were overpaying on purpose they could just have the players turn down the offers.

Abject insanity.

 

[Leaf Army]

Your comment is preposterous, nothing personal.

This year's numbers are already what they are, save for the free agents on the market now. How could the PA deal possibly be shown to "not work" until you go through at least one true free agent signing season with the rollback. Unless you believe that the owners would try to say that this year's two week signing period shows enough, you'd have AT A BARE MINIMUM this year and next under the December 9 proposal.

The PA has descended from utter stupidity to abject insanity.

Well it depends on how the NHL defines "proven not to work". Nobody here knows what they mean by that so people shouldn't pretend they do.

Like I said, Bettman is offering deals he knows will not and cannot be accepted by the PA. There's no question about. This was not a legitmate proposal- it was a PR stunt.

Under this proposal, a player with a $1,000,000 salary would get paid about $80,000 this year. And then may end up with a cap anyway in a year or two. Like I said- that's ridiculous.

 

[oil slick]

The players could always just accept less money.

They won't do that though.

lol - I can just see the contract negotiations now.

GM- I'd like to offer you 5 million per year.
Player - I've told you I'm holding out for 2 million, and not a penny more.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

i f'n hate the players union. to hell with them. at this point i'd rather just the nhl restart the league and rush the juniors to the nhl and watch them play. it may take a few years, but i'd rather watch crosby, brule, ovechkin, malkin, and all the other great young players than these greedy fools. i don't think i can bring myself to cheer for the vast majority of these guys.

 

[Charge_Seven]

No they don't, but their performances, or sometimes lack their of, determines what pay they receive, how many times have we seen players put up a good year the year before they become UFA's only to bomb the next year after they sign their deal, so what? that's the owners fault too...it's a 2 way street

The players didn't give themselves the deal, the owners did. If the owner was only signing the player for his previous years efforts, he should have signed him to a performance incentive contract, as opposed to a straight up $5,000,000 contract.

Oh, but that's something that management needs to THINK about, and we all know they're opposed to that.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The players could always just accept less money.

They won't do that though.

Some players do. A lot of Red Wings have.

Look, I've never said that the players don't make too much money. But the fact is, guys like Lidstrom or Jagr are the exception. Most of these guys have short careers. For the most part, the money they make in the NHL is the only real money they'll ever make. They can't afford not to be greedy.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

I've been a PA supporter from the start but this is rediculous. If their offer from December 2 is good enough then why not try this NHL offer? Goodenow can go to hell for all I care.

 

[Otter]

If the owners did in fact offer to use the NHLPA's proposal until it failed and the players wouldn't accept their own terms.....could that be basis for an impasse at some point down the road?

If so, BRILLIANT! on the owner's part.

 

[kerrly]

If true, isn't that essentially an admission by the PA that their proposal wouldn't work?

Thats exaclty why they won't accept it. Its also the same reason the they won't guarantee their numbers, and the same reason they won't accept a cap. They fully expect their proposal to not stop inflation at all. They've brought the salaries down to the same level as under a cap (with their 24% roll-back), but won't accept a cap on top, because it will fully hault inflation.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Great negotiating tactic by Bettman. The PA looks so dumb, because they're basically rejecting their own damn offer.

 

[LordHelmet]

It's nice to know that Betteman's PR machine works perfectly on all of you folks here... This whole thing makes one thing evident - Betteman's fear of compromise. My way or your way, black or white, your proposal or mine, nothing in between...

You could of course say that the players aren't compromising off of their luxury tax stance, but you're forgetting something - the players don't want a lux tax either. If it were entirely up to them, they would be demanding a no-cap, no-tax system - but they aren't.

A tax is a compromise between the owners' desire for a hard cap and the players' desire for no cap. The players have been offering a compromise and various ways of containing costs. GB has offered ONE solution and refuses to move even an inch.

Poor management has as much to do with players as it does owners

I'll be happily adding this to the "Dumbest things said during the lockout" thread..

 

[Leaf Army]

I've been a PA supporter from the start but this is rediculous. If their offer from December 2 is good enough then why not try this NHL offer? Goodenow can go to hell for all I care.

Hook, line and sinker.

The PR stunt is working.

 

[barnburner]

Well it depends on how the NHL defines "proven not to work". Nobody here knows what they mean by that so people shouldn't pretend they do.

Like I said, Bettman is offering deals he knows will not and cannot be accepted by the PA. There's no question about. This was not a legitmate proposal- it was a PR stunt.

Under this proposal, a player with a $1,000,000 salary would get paid about $80,000 this year. And then may end up with a cap anyway in a year or two. Like I said- that's ridiculous.

If it was a PR stunt - it was certainly matched by the NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal.

 

[417]

Come on people, like Greschner4 said, I'd never thought i'd see the day where the players would decline their own proposal, read that sentence again...THEY REFUSED THEIR OWN PROPOSAL!!

I don't care what anyone has to say about the owners trying to drive up the market to finally implement their own system, which is ludicrous BTW, i'm sure that can be proven, and if proven, would leave the owners in a whole lot of trouble (collusion)

what's wrong with going in a different direction if the players offer dosen't work, didin't the player propose exactly this in the advent that theirs dosen't work, i'm positive I recall reading that when they made their proposal Dec.9th

 

[AH]

On the surface this rejection by the PA looks like a REAL bad move. But there has to be more to this in terms of strategy. There just has to be. No way is Goodenow THAT stupid.

How is this proposal different than the "Hybrid" deal Jeremy Roenick was talking about last week supposedly offered by the players? I am a bit confused on that front.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

If the owners did in fact offer to use the NHLPA's proposal until it failed and the players wouldn't accept their own terms.....could that be basis for an impasse at some point down the road?

If so, BRILLIANT! on the owner's part.

Very possible, what i want to know is what was the triggering factor that would jump the Pa version to the owners version.

 

[Leaf Army]

If it was a PR stunt - it was certainly matched by the NHLPA's 24% rollback proposal.

So?

In case people have been a little slow in noticing, this entire process has been nothing but PR stunts.

This is just another one along the line.

 

[Phelan]

lol - I can just see the contract negotiations now.

GM- I'd like to offer you 5 million per year.
Player - I've told you I'm holding out for 2 million, and not a penny more.

Then they'd take it to arbitration.

 

[Greschner4]

Well it depends on how the NHL defines "proven not to work". Nobody here knows what they mean by that so people shouldn't pretend they do.

Like I said, Bettman is offering deals he knows will not and cannot be accepted by the PA. There's no question about. This was not a legitmate proposal- it was a PR stunt.

Under this proposal, a player with a $1,000,000 salary would get paid about $80,000 this year. And then may end up with a cap anyway in a year or two. Like I said- that's ridiculous.

The PA was offered their December 9 proposal for at least two years and turned it down. At worst, absolute worst, they play two with no cap, four with a cap and fight it out again in 6 years. And that's assuming that the cap trigger was so stringent that only one real free agent season could trigger it, which I highly doubt.

Moreover, they could collectively turn down deals if the owners were overpaying to meet the conditions for a cap, or even file an unfair labor practice charge if they thought it was happening. It's not as though labor law just flat out allows a party to act in bad faith.

There's simply no reasonable defense for the PA turning down its own deal.

 

[Hatter]

Interesting, however it shows that they've tried to move out of the media's view a bit...let's hope a counter proposal comes now.

A counter proposal of what?!?!?!/ They REJECTED THEIR OWN FREAKING PROPOSAL!!!! ARG! I AM SO PISSED RIGHT NOW

 

[Monty]

What TSN is reporting cannot possibly be true. Eklund didn't report it earlier as a rumor or speculation.