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

[Charge_Seven]

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.


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

 

[two out of three*]

Is everything in this thread speculation, about the PA rejecting their own proposal?

Please tell me it would save me a lot of time.

Maybe they both got the HF Proposal..

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Whats Healy gonna say tonight?
lol

 

[kerrly]

Please see my previous post.

You'd have to be an idiot to believe that this was an offer made with the intentions of ever allowing the players system to work. All this offer was made to do was to force the 24% rollback, and then as soon as the owners went to sign the free agents they'd simply have to sign them as they did the past few years, and *bang* in comes their cap, just like they wanted.

Isn't that in itself proof that this system will not work?

 

[likea]

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

that will be the determining factor but if I remember correctly the NHLPA said salary percentage in their proposal would not go over 57 or 58% during the lifetime of the deal and they had graphs and charts to prove it, my guess is that is the trigger

 

[Greschner4]

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.

Goodenow IS that stupid and it basically is the hybrid offer. It would probably work out to be three uncapped years, three capped years. With the possibility of it being four or more uncapped years.

 

[417]

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.


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

Ohh really, so ridiculous arbirtration increases had nothing to do with escalating costs?

a players like jagr obvously not trying anymore after he signed his big deal...

yeah i'm sure it's all the owners fault...yes, they could of used more judgement in signing those players to such huge deals, i don't doubt that, but to think that's all just owners is ludicrous

 

[Hemooli]

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.

Actually, it wasn't a bad move to reject this proposal. By rejecting it, they're showing that their first proposal back in December was absolutely ridiculous. Their mistake, therefore, was making that first proposal in the first place.

 

[Charge_Seven]

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

Wrong my friend. They rejected a bastardized version of their proposal that gave all the power to the owners.

 

[Flukeshot]

From a Pro-Owner side: The PA knows their offer won't work and don't want to prove the owners right.

From a Pro-Player side: The union is just using this as a great big PR move and posturing themselves for the post-impasse world (which Healy would say they were doing all along)

Now most importantly from a neutral position: What are the possible outcomes of the PA accepting this concept?

A) The PA's Dec proposal is implemented and works and they carry on with it for an extended period of time. Everyone rejoices and likes or can tolerate this system.

Players WIN as they got what they supposively wanted AND Owners semi-WIN because they have a system that stops their financial bleeding but don't get what they really wanted, cost certainty.

B) The PA's Dec proposal is implemented and works BUT the owners try to claim it doesn't OR make sure it doesn't work, and attempt to implement their latest offer.

B1- Owners implement their deal and the players strike. Mini-WIN for both sides as players get their system for a short time instead of no hockey/pay cheques AND the owners have greater bargaining position after PA's deal doesn't work.

B2- Owners are found to be lying (somehow, e.g. 3rd party auditors) and are screwed PA WINS big time.

C) The PA's proposal doesn't work and Owners get their way. Players mini-WIN as they get to play under their system for a few seasons. Owners BIG WIN they were right all along.

I really think the players had little to lose as they could've cried foul as soon as the owners tried to implement their salary cap. They could go on strike and we'd be right back to where we are now but at least they'd have gotten back to playing and getting payed for at least a short time.

There are a lot of things we don't know yet. Maybe the league had some ridiculous conditions for implementation of their offer. I can't wait to hear more and hear why Goodenow thought this was not at least a scenario worth trying. If it is because they saw it as a way for the owners to EVENTUALLY get a Cap then this is B.S. and I will undeclare my neutrality.

 

[LordHelmet]

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!!

Really? I read the Dec. 9 and I don't remember anything in there saying "If the contents of this proposal does not achieve X, Y, and Z then the PA accepts a hard cap." Care to show that to me?

 

[Greschner4]

Whats Healy gonna say tonight?
lol

That the owners would just overpay guys to trigger the cap.

 

[Chileiceman]

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.

Ok. let's say that a guy makes 1.8 million which is the average salary for 10 years.
That's 18 mill. dollars. That's way more than an averege Joe makes in his life.
Suppose with the cap they make 1.3 for 10 years.
That's still 13 mill, still way more than the normal person makes.
So I think we can safely say that with a salary cap the players are still gonna be more than wealthy for the rest of their lives and they CAN afford to be a little less greedy, if of course they save some during their careers.

 

[Greschner4]

Really? I read the Dec. 9 and I don't remember anything in there saying "If the contents of this proposal does not achieve X, Y, and Z then the PA accepts a hard cap." Care to show that to me?

They were offered their proposal for at least two years, probably more, and turned it down.

Even if a cap's put in it doesn't mean you can't fight it again at the end of this CBA.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

That the owners would just overpay guys to trigger the cap.

Now that could be quite true.

 

[Hemooli]

From a Pro-Owner side: The PA knows their offer won't work and don't want to prove the owners right.

From a Pro-Player side: The union is just using this as a great big PR move and posturing themselves for the post-impasse world (which Healy would say they were doing all along)

Now most importantly from a neutral position: What are the possible outcomes of the PA accepting this concept?

A) The PA's Dec proposal is implemented and works and they carry on with it for an extended period of time. Everyone rejoices and likes or can tolerate this system.

Players WIN as they got what they supposively wanted AND Owners semi-WIN because they have a system that stops their financial bleeding but don't get what they really wanted, cost certainty.

B) The PA's Dec proposal is implemented and works BUT the owners try to claim it doesn't OR make sure it doesn't work, and attempt to implement their latest offer.

B1- Owners implement their deal and the players strike. Mini-WIN for both sides as players get their system for a short time instead of no hockey/pay cheques AND the owners have greater bargaining position after PA's deal doesn't work.

B2- Owners are found to be lying (somehow, e.g. 3rd party auditors) and are screwed PA WINS big time.

C) The PA's proposal doesn't work and Owners get their way. Players mini-WIN as they get to play under their system for a few seasons. Owners BIG WIN they were right all along.

I really think the players had little to lose as they could've cried foul as soon as the owners tried to implement their salary cap. They could go on strike and we'd be right back to where we are now but at least they'd have gotten back to playing and getting payed for at least a short time.

There are a lot of things we don't know yet. Maybe the league had some ridiculous conditions for implementation of their offer. I can't wait to hear more and hear why Goodenow thought this was not at least a scenario worth trying. If it is because they saw it as a way for the owners to EVENTUALLY get a Cap then this is B.S. and I will undeclare my neutrality.

Excellent job - well thought out. I completely agree.

 

[417]

Really? I read the Dec. 9 and I don't remember anything in there saying "If the contents of this proposal does not achieve X, Y, and Z then the PA accepts a hard cap." Care to show that to me?

it wasn't in the offer, but I recall several players saying just that, I don't remember who, but i'm sure i'm not the only one here who read that...

anyways who cares!!!!!

the owners just proved that the players last offer was a joke, and the best part is, the PA are the ones who did it for them...

 

[Greschner4]

it wasn't in the offer, but I recall several players saying just that, I don't remember who, but i'm sure i'm not the only one here who read that...

anyways who cares!!!!!

the owners just proved that the players last offer was a joke, and the best part is, the PA are the ones who did it for them...

The idea that "Come on owners just try it and if it doesn't work you can have your cap" has been uttered by players and the PA in one form or another probably a thousand times since December 9.

 

[kerrly]

Bettman is offering the players deals he KNOWS they can't accept. How would that have been a good deal for the players?

Yeah, for the remaining 25 games of this year you play at salary reduced by 24%. Then a year from now, we implement our deal.

Of course they can't accept that. That's ridiculous.

Well if the players offer works as good as they said it will, they can continue playing under it until the end of time if they like. What's ridiculous is the NHL just owned the NHLPA by calling out their proposal, and the PA'ers are still to naive too admit it.

 

[bleedgreen]

Ok. let's say that a guy makes 1.8 million which is the average salary for 10 years.
That's 18 mill. dollars. That's way more than an averege Joe makes in his life.
Suppose with the cap they make 1.3 for 10 years.
That's still 13 mill, still way more than the normal person makes.
So I think we can safely say that with a salary cap the players are still gonna be more than wealthy for the rest of their lives and they CAN afford to be a little less greedy, if of course they save some during their careers.

i agree completely, but you have to take out the taxes these guys will have to pay - which is significant. and their pa dues .

 

[waffledave]

If the owners purposely overpay to trigger the cap, the players can just accept less money.

 

[WrightOn]

Wrong my friend. They rejected a bastardized version of their proposal that gave all the power to the owners.

Seriously, where is this info coming from?

Can you share the knowledge with us? Link?

Or if it's speculative, cool....just say so.

 

[Charge_Seven]

Well if the players offer works as good as they said it will, they can continue playing under it until the end of time if they like. What's ridiculous is the NHL just owned the NHLPA by calling out their proposal, and the PA'ers are still to naive too admit it.

The PA'ers aren't being naive as you put it, we're looking at it objectively, something that the owner supporters have never been able to do.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I have no idea how the NHLPA apologists can say anything right now. They have defended the player's offer with the 25% rollback over and over, and now the NHL has said they will accept it and allow this to be the system with the cavet that if it does not hold salaries in check that the league will switch to the owner's proposal, to which the NHLPA flatly refuses. THEY HAVE REFUSED THEIR OWN OFFER!!! How do you defend that? Grasp at straws and say that the player's can't accept it because the NHL gets to call the shots? Something tells me that is not true considering that the same apologists yelled and screamed that the NHL's numbers have been wrong, yet the NHLPA's numbers match up to the NHL's, and that the NHL could not be trusted because of number fudging, yet the NHL has offered a guarantee of independent audits and huge fines for hiding revenue. Every single thing the NHLPA has cried about the NHL has answered in spades. What's next? What else can the PA possibly cry over?

Seems there is only one side of this debate that has been sucked in by a great PR machine, and its not those that support the league. The actions of the two sides speak volumes. Goodenow came to this gun fight with an empty clip and has hoped to bluff his way through it. The NHL waited him out and just filled him full of lead.

 

[The Legend]

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

WHAT?!?!?? The players don't pay themselves. The players are signed by the owners who give them this money. How hard is that to understand? The owners DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THEM WHAT THEY WANT! If a player says I'll play for 10 million a season, the owner doesn't have to sign him to it.