What is the NHLPA thinking?

After reading an article in the most recent edition of The Hockey news (I forget who wrote it and the name of it), I finally found an article expressing almost exactly what I have been thinking for a while now, more specifically, since the NHLPA gave their last proposal. In short: What the hell is the NHLPA thinking? Is there anyone out there that can honestly say that they don`t think their will be any type of cap (either a hard cap, soft cap or hard luxury tax) when all is said and done? There is no way the NHL is going to settle for anything less than one of those three, so why doesn`t the NHLPA try to get the best deal possible under the parameters the owner`s will accept, rather than dismiss anything that ties salaries to revenue.

From an NHLPA perspective I would be thinking: Fine, we will tie salaries to revenue but we will do it in the form of a Luxury tax, NO HARD CAP. The threshold won`t be at 50 or 55% of revenues, it will be at 60%. UFA age will be lowered to 28. A joint committee will be set up, made up of members from the NHL, NHLPA as well as independent auditors to make sure every penny made and spent by the league is accounted for.

Can anybody honestly say that this isn`t a fair deal from the players perspective? There is absolutely no way the players can do better than this by sitting out a season or two. By accepting something similar to this in the near future, the players do four things: a) Make out like bandits compared to their NFL and NBA counterparts, b) Make a great PR move by showing the fans that they do want a season and are willing to make concessions (real concessions, not the crap they have been tryin to pass as concessions so far), c) Avoid the risk of the NHL declaring an impasse and implementing their own CBA and finally d) Salvage the season, and some salary for that matter, to minimize the damage done to the game.

 

What are you thinking? An average salary of $1.3 Million Dollars??? Are you crazy? How can you justify paying a hockey player that much money. Doctors cant even make that make much money. Winnipeg folded when payrolls were half that! How can Florida, Edmonton and Carolina compete with an average payroll over $30 Million Dollars? Thats crazy talk.

Owners have big ships to pilot and massive expenses. They have to make at least $30million a year off their teams. Otherwise its just not worth it for them. After all they put all this hard work into getting the franchise. They need those moneys. You dont want to lose your team because you refused to let them have it do you? How can you possibly make money paying over 38% of your revenues in salaries? Thats just way too high, no industry does that.

Why should they get a percentage of the owners money? They should be on hourly salaries like Burger King employees. Unless they accept that, hockey is doomed. Can anyone say that isnt fair from a players perspective? I mean we are talking over $500/hr !! They make out like bandits compared to corporate lawyers.. These would be real concessions, not the bull where they get a guaranteed percentage of team revenues.

What if the team spends money on marketing and makes money that way? Why should the players get that money off the owners hard work? And who sold all those advertisements? Were the players out on the street knocking on doors? Why should they get any of that board advertising revenue? Its not right. And its the TV station that got all the sponsors for broadcast. Again, non-hockey revenue.

Hourly salaries or we bring in scabs and teach them a lesson. Its the only way we can salvage a season and minimize the damage to the game.

 

I'm glad you finally see that the players really don't deserve that much at all.

Owners should make a profit.

 

Great Post.

Honestly don`t even bother posting if you are simply going to spew your ignorant sarcasm without even addressing any of the points I have made.

Of course I would expect nothing less from you.

 

What you dont like that I pulled numbers out of a hat?

 

Since when is the NHL's stance anything but a hard cap? I've never heard of them even considering a soft cap a possibility. Why? Because you can bet the owners in Toronto, NY, and Detroit wouldn't agree to a system in which they have to financially support clubs in Carolina and Nashville.

I bet the NHLPA would be willing to negotiate a soft cap/luxury tax system. The owners, however, refuse to budge from a non-negotiable hard cap. Given that, I still find it unfathomable that people still support the NHL owners in this situation.

 

how much is an average ticket to a game


what do lurury boxes cost per yr?

owners do make alot of revenue too guys.

1.3 mil isa great avergae salary imo

 

Thats because ideally they would want a hard cap, but do you think that if the players were willing to negotiate a soft cap tied to revenues they wouldn`t consider it? They would in a hartbeat, and I for one think that this is where a deal is going to be made.

Thats an incredibly weak argument. If they don`t want to "support" lower incomes teams, as you say, then they simply have to stay under the cap, pretty simple really. But I would be willing to bet that the teams you mentioned (TO, NYR and DET) would love a system where they were still able to make additions at the trade deadline and sign players in the offseason.

The owners have yet to "budge" from their hard cap stance because the NHLPA has made absolutely no effort to put forward an offer that would make them "budge". Their last offer was garbage, and actually a step back from their previous one, they make a reasonable offer and the owners will move off the hard cap stance.

I don`t support the owners, I agree with them that something drastic has to be done to stabilize the league. The NHLPA has done absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise and it is for that reason that I am more inclined to agree with the owners.

 

$24Mil is a great average franchise value imo

 

That is exactly right Chelios. Do the players actually think they can win this entire negotiation and keep working under the current system, or one similar to it? If they think that, they're delusional.

I think it would be in the best interests for the PA to try and negotiate the cap with the owners, to what extent it will be implemented, and the nature of the cap. They can certainly get a more than decent settlement out of this, but for some reason they remain in their fantasy world and still hold hope that they will come out of this on top.

 

Pretty Simple? If its so simple, then why dont they do it now? If they dont want to lose money, stay on budget. Pretty simple.

They dont even want to negotiate. They are giving the players a time-out in the corner to reflect on their ultimatum. What makes you believe they have any intention of negotiating. They are just waiting until half the season is over first?

The players initial offer proposed offers to specifically address problems. The owners complained that there was too much revenue sharing, they didnt want that. The 2nd offer reduced the amount of revenue sharing as they requested, Daly calls it a step backwards, you believe it.

 

Neither does the NHLPA want to negotiate. The NHL is not going to do anything that will worsen its position at the impasse, nor should it. The NHL is going to do nothing, that is all it has to do. The ball is in the players court, its up to them to do something. If nothing happens then NHL gets its impasse and $31m cap (and the legal fight that comes with it). If the NHLPA was smart it'd be making the running on this, getting out into the press and banging out CBA ideas to put pressure on the NHL.

Sure they did. Unfortunately the scale of each as tokenistic. 5000 pinches of bulldust is still less on shovel full. Quality not quantity was needed. The NHLPA offer when combined amounted to nothing after one year at the current rate.

Both offers sucked. The NHLPA knew it when they offered them. If the NHLPA want to win friends they should be using their free time to present more offers to the NHL and the general media "Hey look at this new idea, at least we are trying". Fact is they aren't prepared to offer anything that won't get laughed at by the NHL or the media or the fans. So that is why they are deadly quiet. They aren't prepared to bleed. If they really wanted to put pressure on the NHL they'd come out with an offer along the lines of

$40m cap + $1 for $1 luxury tax
20% rollback
two-way arbitration
80% qualifying offers
Rookie contracts no bonuses
1-5 overall $1m
5-10 overall $900K
11-20 overall $800K,
21-30 overall $750K
2nd $700K
etc

with a couple of clauses for things players want

UFA age 29
guaranteed contracts
mandatory no-trade clauses for players 26 and older during the season (players can waive no trade clause)

----------------------------------------------------

Now that is good offer. The players bleed but not that much, they don't lose their exisiting high contracts, there is no hard cap, revenue sharing helps the little clubs stay afloat (more NHLPA jobs). Make an offer like that and all the pressure comes of the NHLPA and back on to the NHL to make a deal. Its a much better deal for them than the $31m cap they risk being put up under an impasse.

 

Ticket prices have gone up and the quality of the product has gone down.

Whose worth $7-$11M per season? You would have to go back a few years to find a player who scored 60 goals or had 130 points and goalies can thank the 'trap' and their oversized equipment for their low GAA.

Reality check to the players. Get back to the table and get a deal done. If has to be a cap, so be it. Just do it and stop stealing jobs from guys in Europe.

 

Exactly, that offer is a substantial starting point, and is an offer that is geared towards actually solving the economic problems, not a blatant PR offer and making an offer for the sake of it.

If the NHLPA were smart, they would start making proposals like those, and try and get out of this with the best possible deal they can, since a cap will be implemented one way or another, they might as well negotiate the best possible cap for themselves, and make out a lot better than the NFLPA, and the NBA players.

 

So sad...

 

This is a very good proposal and I agree with on the NHLPA's need to put out offers.

Sooner or later, the owners will bite and force Bettman's hand. At the least, it would help the NHLPA with the PR battle which they are currently losing bigtime.

 

I wonder.

 

In the real world people make money if they run their businesses correctly (i.e - follow a budget, keep costs low and selling a good product). In the real world, success is judged by the bottom line. In the real world a true market place exists - without guarenteed contracts, qualifying offers, et al.

In the sports world, success is judged by wins and losses, not the bottom line. The NHLPA under Goodenow has always known this and has used it to their advantage when negotiating previous CBA's. Owners of sports franchises are extremely successful businessmen because they created successful businesses in other industries. If they wanted to create a successful business by its traditional definition (bottom line earnings) they no doubt could have.

 

Do you think before you type?


Who are the owners going to market? Answer: THE PLAYERS
Who do the fans come to see? Answer: THE PLAYERS
Who makes the money for the owner? Answer: The minting company..jk THE PLAYERS


Without the players, the Owners have no product to market, the jersies fans buy usually have a fav. player's name on the back.

 

Are you new here? He was being sarcastic.

 

Nonsense. Who cares which players name is on the back of the jersey? Bohonos - Hossa, whats the diff as long as the competition is equal each night. The important thing is the betting integrity of the game. No one will care what level the competition is at, just that they are all equal and are on tv. Its not greatness of teams fans want, its equality between teams. Great teams need to be broken up to give everyone else a fair chance. This is why we fans support scabs. To show them we dont care who plays for our laundry.

I want someone supporting Bettman to explain here how they can justify paying players an average salary guaranteed over a million dollars a year. How can you justify that much money? Surely $1.05mil is enough. Why do they need $1.3 mil? Any team, should at any time, be able to afford any player they want. Otherwise, there is something wrong with the system.

 

Thats a complete exaggeration, and its taken to an extreme. That will never happen, all I want is for some financial stability across the league, and the NHL to be around in 5 - 10 years and restricting the losses in this league is a way to do that.

 

Thus explaining the roaring success of the OSHL.

It's the *game* that fans pay money to see. Players are transitory, they retire, they get traded, they get released because they're no longer effective or too expensive.

And when that favourite player of yours gets traded, what do you do? Buy a new jersey, with a new name on the back.

Over the space of a few years, there isn't a single player still playing on your favourite team that was there when you started. Hell, half of them are dead since I started watching. Yet, you still remain a fan. Because ultimately, you're a fan of hockey, not players.

 

I understand that you're just being sarcastic here, but what worries me is that when reading these boards, one has to realise that actually there are people who call themselves hockey fans and really want this.

What if they and the owners get what they want, and great hockey is gone for good?

 

So why are the Ranger$ such a laughing stock? They have what amounts to an unlimited budget, therefore great hockey should follow them around remoras to a shark...