Why have the NHLPA not countered the last NHL offer to keep talks moving along?

[eye]

I know there is a difference in opinion on how to move forward but why did the NHLPA not counter the last NHL offer if for nothing else to keep talks moving along. They could have made a number of counter proposals but seem disinterested in helping the NHL and the owners resolve the financial problems of the league on a longterm basis.

Would it not have been prudent for Goodenow to come back with a stiffer luxury tax proposal, revised arbitration, a compromise on cost linkage, a compromise on the rollback offer etc. etc. etc.

Click to read more...

 

[Oilers Ent]

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Maybe because the union feels whatever they offer the owners will only take the points of their proposal and add it in their hard cap? I mean thats what they did with the last players proposal. Great your offering a 24% rollback in prices, let just add that to our proposal of a hard cap. Basically the last offer from the owners was worse for the players than their previous offer. Because it didn't include the rollback.

And i know this cause i support the players and therefore an agent or associated with a player. I forget which one Union supports get labeled with now.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Maybe because the union feels whatever they offer the owners will only take the points of their proposal and add it in their hard cap? I mean thats what they did with the last players proposal. Great your offering a 24% rollback in prices, let just add that to our proposal of a hard cap. Basically the last offer from the owners was worse for the players than their previous offer. Because it didn't include the rollback.

And i know this cause i support the players and therefore an agent or associated with a player. I forget which one Union supports get labeled with now.

Are you a union supporter or Detroit support and the unions position dovetails with keeping a system that will keep Detroit with an advantage?

I am no 'owner supporter' but I am in their corner because I believe in competitive balance and their position happens to bring that, almost despite their actual goals (more money in their pockets). To be honest it in the relatively short run will hurt my Pens because that new arena is a done deal now that slots have passed virtually guarenteeing that the Pens could have been a player on the open market, but I care more about the game overall, and would not want that advantage if it harmed the sport.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Are you a union supporter or Detroit support and the unions position dovetails with keeping a system that will keep Detroit with an advantage?

I am no 'owner supporter' but I am in their corner because I believe in competitive balance and their position happens to bring that, almost despite their actual goals (more money in their pockets). To be honest it in the relatively short run will hurt my Pens because that new arena is a done deal now that slots have passed virtually guarenteeing that the Pens could have been a player on the open market, but I care more about the game overall, and would not want that advantage if it harmed the sport.

Nope, not in a union or a supporter in most cases. Honestly Jaded, i dont fully support the players i and everyone realize changes need to be made. But i dont think the owner need a hard salary cap to get it dont. I feel a luxury tax with real bite would work (i proposed one a while ago) I also feel if the owners are hell bent on a hard tax they need to fund it properly with complete revenue sharing. Thats something that hurts the Wings.

What i cant stand is when people say the players are being greedy for trying to get as much as possible. Everyone in the real world trys to get the most money from their employer as possible, even if they dont deserve it or not. The owners are just as greedy as the players. Painting one side with a brush isn't fair because both sides are equally guilty. And it also pisses me off when people only think the large markets teams are at fault for overpaying players and driving up the market. Thats is so false, from the smallest of markets to the largest of markets have made mistakes when it comes to paying players. It's ironic IMO some of the hard line owners like Jacobs and Karmanous are the same owners who have cause players salaries to sky rocket.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

And i know this cause i support the players and therefore an agent or associated with a player. I forget which one Union supports get labeled with now.

It's the union supporters that tend to label the owner supporters with descriptions like "brainwashed", "ignorant", "uneducated", et al.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

It is ok to have self interests JW. I have them too. As I said, I do not think that many who 'support' the owners do so out of anything but a dovetailing of interests. But in every sport I think that it has become clear that overall health of the sport depends on competitive balance. Luxury taxes are just a way to give the illusion of 'coming' balance. It is a farce, otherwise there would be no objection to a cap. And I truly believe that most of the ardent opponents of a cap are merely protecting a system that gives their team a leg up . . .which is fine and for which I do not even blame them thatr much, but which I will be strongly against for obvious reasons.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

It is ok to have self interests JW. I have them too. As I said, I do not think that many who 'support' the owners do so out of anything but a dovetailing of interests. But in every sport I think that it has become clear that overall health of the sport depends on competitive balance. Luxury taxes are just a way to give the illusion of 'coming' balance. It is a farce, otherwise there would be no objection to a cap. And I truly believe that most of the ardent opponents of a cap are merely protecting a system that gives their team a leg up . . .which is fine and for which I do not even blame them thatr much, but which I will be strongly against for obvious reasons.

The player luxury tax proposal was weak, and the MLB luxury tax is weak thats why they dont work. If it has bite i'm talking dollar for dollar penalty it will work to lower payrolls. I dont think the Wings could have added Hatcher and Whitney this year if there was they type of system. Instead of costing 8 million against the payroll they could have costed 16. I dont think they could have re-signed Kris Draper for the money he was making, now he would be hurting the Wings to the tune of 6 million dollars.

Another problem with the owners proposal is they are forcing teams to spend money they cant afford. Can the Pens and Preds afford a 34 million dollar payroll? The Pens and Preds are making small profits, but were talking adding 14 million dollars to the Preds payroll and 8 million to the Pens, where are they gonna get the money to pay for that? So far the owners have not shown a way to share revenue except for a portion of payoff revenue which varies greatly from year to year. If the Wings and Flyers are in the finals that revenue will be greater than the Lightning and Flames. It total guess work.

Bettman was asked about revenue sharing in his last press conference and total ignored the question

 

[hockeytown9321]

And I truly believe that most of the ardent opponents of a cap are merely protecting a system that gives their team a leg up . . .which is fine and for which I do not even blame them thatr much, but which I will be strongly against for obvious reasons.

At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.

I know that because I'm a Red Wing fan, everybody assumes I want a system that enabels them to continue to "buy" championships. Ignoring the fact that they haven't for a minute, all I want is a system that allows them to draft as well as they have for the last 15 years, and keep those draft picks when and if they develop into stars, so long as they have the revenue to do that. I happen to think, based on how the NFL's cap has worked, that a hard cap does not allow a team to build itself into a dynasty. I understand that some teams don't have the revenue to do that. I also recognize that some teams are horribly managed and use the "Detroit and New York ruin it for everybody else" excuse to pacify their fans. If the NHL adopted more significant revenue sharing, those teams without enough revenue to keep their players could.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Can the Pens and Preds afford a 34 million dollar payroll? The Pens and Preds are making small profits, but were talking adding 14 million dollars to the Preds payroll and 8 million to the Pens, where are they gonna get the money to pay for that?

The Pens had something like a 37 million dollar payroll only three years ago. They averaged pretty well over 15,000 the past 3 years despite having the worst record in hockey last year and third worst the year before. And with slots passing, a new arena will be built (once a new CBA is signed) with more revenues (hell, Mario may even get the slots license and could then print money) coming in. The Pens are fine money wise, and were not as terrible as some think, Patrick obviously was positioning the Pens early, the Jagr trade hurt that perception of them though. In any event the Pens could compete financially, without a new arena, middle of the road. They could even move up with the new arena in competition for talent. That would not be good for the game though, which I personally want to see healthy throughout the league. The 'tougher' tax will only lessen the harm, but not keep the very top teams from pigging up the talent. If Hockey has teams only three or four times the collective salaries of the lowest collective salary teams instead of baseballs seven or either times (NYY to TB and PITT) it still is a bad thing. Only a Cap will save hockey longterm that I see.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.

How would an imposed cap, be it the NBA, NFL, or some other variety give any team an 'advantage?'

You lost me there.

 

[hockeytown9321]

How would an imposed cap, be it the NBA, NFL, or some other variety give any team an 'advantage?'

You lost me there.

An advantage over what they have now. Basically, they are supportign Bettman becuase they think it will help their team. Peole can say they're interested in the survival of Nashville or Carolina all they want. They want a better system for their team.

I think the blind faith in Bettman is proven in the revenue sharing issue. When its been brought up the last week or so, all the "cap" people seem to dismiss it, much like Bettman. If I were a small market fan, I'd want as much revenue sharing as possible.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

An advantage over what they have now. Basically, they are supportign Bettman becuase they think it will help their team. Peole can say they're interested in the survival of Nashville or Carolina all they want. They want a better system for their team.

I think the blind faith in Bettman is proven in the revenue sharing issue. When its been brought up the last week or so, all the "cap" people seem to dismiss it, much like Bettman. If I were a small market fan, I'd want as much revenue sharing as possible.

.......... if you are trying to argue that I would want an end to a system that is on its face unfair and inequitable and which gives a leg up to some teams, a leg down to others, and which is trending toward making hockey about as legit a 'competition' as pro-wrestling ................. guilty as charged.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

The Pens had something like a 37 million dollar payroll only three years ago. They averaged pretty well over 15,000 the past 3 years despite having the worst record in hockey last year and third worst the year before. And with slots passing, a new arena will be built (once a new CBA is signed) with more revenues (hell, Mario may even get the slots license and could then print money) coming in. The Pens are fine money wise, and were not as terrible as some think, Patrick obviously was positioning the Pens early, the Jagr trade hurt that perception of them though. In any event the Pens could compete financially, without a new arena, middle of the road. They could even move up with the new arena in competition for talent. That would not be good for the game though, which I personally want to see healthy throughout the league. The 'tougher' tax will only lessen the harm, but not keep the very top teams from pigging up the talent. If Hockey has teams only three or four times the collective salaries of the lowest collective salary teams instead of baseballs seven or either times (NYY to TB and PITT) it still is a bad thing. Only a Cap will save hockey longterm that I see.

Were not talking down the road were talking today or next year. how do the Pens increase their payroll upwards to 34 million and still be in good shape money wise? Seems to me they are gonna lose money until they get the new building. Yeah there is a light at the end of the tunnel but they need that revenue now if they have to up payroll.

 

[CarlRacki]

At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.

I know that because I'm a Red Wing fan, everybody assumes I want a system that enabels them to continue to "buy" championships. Ignoring the fact that they haven't for a minute, all I want is a system that allows them to draft as well as they have for the last 15 years, and keep those draft picks when and if they develop into stars, so long as they have the revenue to do that. I happen to think, based on how the NFL's cap has worked, that a hard cap does not allow a team to build itself into a dynasty. I understand that some teams don't have the revenue to do that. I also recognize that some teams are horribly managed and use the "Detroit and New York ruin it for everybody else" excuse to pacify their fans. If the NHL adopted more significant revenue sharing, those teams without enough revenue to keep their players could.

Well, it depends how one defines "dynasty". If by dynasty you mean 4-5 consecutive championships, then yes, a hard cap would likely prevent that. Then again, the NHL hasn't had that kind of dynasty in 2+ decades without a cap.

But if by "dynasty" you mean perennial contender, then a cap will not prevent that. The NE Patriots have won two of the last three Super Bowls and are among the favorites again this year. The Philly Eagles could be headed to their fourth consecutive conference championship. When was the last time an NHL team made three in a row? The St. Louis Rams are in the playoffs for the fifth time in six years. The Packers have missed the playoffs twice in the last 12 years. The Colts have been in the playoffs five of the last six years. The Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl two out of the NFL's first three years under a cap. All pretty dynasty-like, if you ask me.
A soft cap makes dynasty-like franchises even more likely (see: Chicago Bulls, LA Lakers)

Moreover, I'm not sure why anyone would clamor for a system that fosters dynasties. As a kid growing up in Chicago, I can tell you that cheering on a very good early 80s Blackhawks team that nonetheless never stood a chance against the Oilers wasn't my idea of a great time. A sports league as a whole is much healthier when 2-3 teams don't dominate the landscape. The NFL has learned that lesson, much to their big, fat wallets' content.

As for keeping drafted players, this is why the players should be fighting to a "soft" cap, a la the NBA. It would give the owners some level of cost certainty - which, they're going to get one way or another - yet allow homegrown players to get paid very well while staying with their original club. It also protects veteran players from being cut out of the league solely because they make too much money. The owners win, the players win and the fans win. The players' refusal to negotiate on this basis only makes it more likely that the owners will eventually impose and even stricter cap more punitive to the players.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Were not talking down the road were talking today or next year. how do the Pens increase their payroll upwards to 34 million and still be in good shape money wise? Seems to me they are gonna lose money until they get the new building. Yeah there is a light at the end of the tunnel but they need that revenue now if they have to up payroll.

It is a divergence from the topic, but will do so briefly. The Pens already basically have a new building when the new CBA is signed. Slots passed and any Pittsburgh license will be granted to whoever builds a new arena, likely to Mario.

 

[SENSible1*]

At the same time, alot of the support here for a cap is because those fans feel it gives their team an advantage.

No, they want YOUR team and the other big markets to lose their advantage and EVERY team to face the same tough payroll decisions.

 

[hockeytown9321]

.......... if you are trying to argue that I would want an end to a system that is on its face unfair and inequitable and which gives a leg up to some teams, a leg down to others, and which is trending toward making hockey about as legit a 'competition' as pro-wrestling ................. guilty as charged.

Then we'll just have to disagree on the current state of the league. And again, we're back to thinking the owners somehow want to help the small market teams compete.

I can only refer you to Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Calgary Minnesota, and others who have made great playoff runs during the course of the last CBA. And before you tell me thy were one hit wonders, isn't that what pairtiy is supposed to be.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Wrong as usual, Thunder

wrong again, THUNDER

No, they want YOUR team and the other big markets to lose their advantage and EVERY team to face the same tough payroll decisions.

The teams that have a so called advantage over others are ones with good management and great drafting. The teams that currently do this well will lose their advantage, because they wont be able to keep their stable of draft picks if there's a salary cap.

Shortsightedness sucks, eh?

 

[SENSible1*]

Then we'll just have to disagree on the current state of the league. And again, we're back to thinking the owners somehow want to help the small market teams compete.

I can only refer you to Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Calgary Minnesota, and others who have made great playoff runs during the course of the last CBA. And before you tell me thy were one hit wonders, isn't that what pairtiy is supposed to be.

The top payroll teams make the playoffs 75% of the time.

The bottom third payroll teams make the playoffs 25% of the time.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Then we'll just have to disagree on the current state of the league. And again, we're back to thinking the owners somehow want to help the small market teams compete.

I never said that, I in fact said that the owners want to line their pockets, that is an ancillary benefit of their proposal but as I want that I am on their side no matter their actual motivation.

I can only refer you to Anaheim, Carolina, Florida, Calgary Minnesota, and others who have made great playoff runs during the course of the last CBA. And before you tell me thy were one hit wonders, isn't that what pairtiy is supposed to be.


I am against giving anyone an advantage. I want to have every team compete on and off the ice solely by what their management and players do. Giving an unfair advantage to anyone goes against what I would most enjoy seeing, even if I happened to be in a 'blessed' city. This argument reminds me of quotas, and the reasons why I would be against them even if I benefitted. It dilutes the 'accomplishment' if you end up 'winning.'

....

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I know there is a difference in opinion on how to move forward but why did the NHLPA not counter the last NHL offer if for nothing else to keep talks moving along. They could have made a number of counter proposals but seem disinterested in helping the NHL and the owners resolve the financial problems of the league on a longterm basis.

Would it not have been prudent for Goodenow to come back with a stiffer luxury tax proposal, revised arbitration, a compromise on cost linkage, a compromise on the rollback offer etc. etc. etc.

I guess when the NHL didn't counter the first proposal made by the PA, that set the tone. Besides, there isn't much negotiating to do until one side gives in to the others' philosophy.

 

[MojoJojo]

No, they want YOUR team and the other big markets to lose their advantage and EVERY team to face the same tough payroll decisions.

True enough, but a fan in Philly pays three times as much to go to a game than one in Tampa (where they gave away tickets for the playoffs). I pay $60 per person to sit in the nose bleeds and have to watch the game with a pair of binoculars. The lower levels are obscenely expensive. While the salary cap would help struggling small market teams, it wont lower the price of my ticket one bit, and would just funnell vast profits into the pockets of corporations such as Comcast.

 

[SENSible1*]

wrong again, THUNDER


The teams that have a so called advantage over others are ones with good management and great drafting. The teams that currently do this well will lose their advantage, because they wont be able to keep their stable of draft picks if there's a salary cap.

Teams with good drafting and management will gain an even bigger advantage in a capped league. I don't expect you to grasp this though.

Shortsightedness sucks, eh?

Yes it does, which is why I'd rather see a healthy league under a cap even if it means the Sens have to replace some of their current roster with new talent they develop.

You'd rather sell the whole league down the tubes under the delusion that the Sens would be able to afford all their talent under the current system.

Shortsightedness indeed.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

True enough, but a fan in Philly pays three times as much to go to a game than one in Tampa (where they gave away tickets for the playoffs). I pay $60 per person to sit in the nose bleeds and have to watch the game with a pair of binoculars. The lower levels are obscenely expensive. While the salary cap would help struggling small market teams, it wont lower the price of my ticket one bit, and would just funnell vast profits into the pockets of corporations such as Comcast.

We have gone through this before. A movie ticket may cost $20 in NY and $6 in Columbus to see the same movie. It does not hold water that the product should be less in Columbus.