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

Status
Not open for further replies.

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
CarlRacki said:
I certainly don't give the owners a pass, but the fact remains the NHL made the last offer and the PA rejected the last offer. Standard negotiating procedures would dictate that the ball is in the PA's court.

Well why does the PA have to make all the offers? The onus is on the owners just as much as the players to make offers, they're the one's locking out the players.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
Since the NHL almost certainly will not agree to a 100 percent luxury tax, it's kind of a moot discussion, but we'll have it anyhow..
ok thats corrected.

CarlRacki said:
Second, if the system passes along tax revenues to smaller-market teams to boost their payrolls, ...... a luxury tax doesn't necessarily reduce salaries so much as it shifts revenue from one team to another
exactly and the NHL has ZERO interest in any significant revenue sharing. anything that transfers money from BOS, TOR and NYR to EDM, NSH and CRL is never going to happen.

CarlRacki said:
Beyond that, you're wrong to assume the entire purpose of a cap is cutting salaries. It is also designed to restore a level of competitive balance. That level exists in the NFL and NBA (hmmm ... I wonder why) and not the NHL and MLB.
the NHL has zero problem with competitive balance. not one team is devoid of a chance to get into the playoffs and we know every year there is a very good chance a cinderalla team does better than a "paper" team.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
I certainly don't give the owners a pass, but the fact remains the NHL made the last offer and the PA rejected the last offer. Standard negotiating procedures would dictate that the ball is in the PA's court.
not true. it is the owners who want to drastically alter the business, it is up to them to come up with a workable solution.

once they have propose a framework that the players can agree to, then they can start negotiating.

dr
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,621
21,958
Nova Scotia
Visit site
DR said:
NHL owners are not at all interested in the NBA model and arent willing to do their part in creating an NFL type model.

nope, the NHL owners want an NHL model. no comparison to the NBA and NFL, other than the "N" in their name.

dr
The NHL are trying to get a system that suits their sport, which is one that has to survive without a major TV deal...they don't seem to be able to score a TV deal because in the last 10 years the product on the ice has diminished while the salaries have flourished... makes no sense does it? The PA blames Gary for this, but they are the ones that play and cash their cheques and really don't care what happens to the league as a whole, just as long as Knob Goodenow can keep getting their big $$$ for them.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
How do you know the NHL owners wouldn't accept an NBA model?
because i heard him say so ... is that good enough ?
and if he is ok with it, he should get off his a$$ and propose it before he cancels the season.

dr
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
go kim johnsson said:
Well why does the PA have to make all the offers? The onus is on the owners just as much as the players to make offers, they're the one's locking out the players.

OK, one more time ... the NHL made the last offer.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
DR said:
because i heard him say so ... is that good enough ?
and if he is ok with it, he should get off his a$$ and propose it before he cancels the season.

dr

Hmm .. not only a thorough, reasoned and intelligent retort, but also quite witty :shakehead .
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
Hmm .. not only a thorough, reasoned and intelligent retort, but also quite witty :shakehead .
seriously, as i cut through the sarcasm, he said those precise words. the NHL is not interested in the NBA model soft cap.

if he is telling the truth, then thats that that. if he is lying, then he should get on with proposing it already.

right ?

dr
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
DR said:
seriously, as i cut through the sarcasm, he said those precise words. the NHL is not interested in the NBA model soft cap.

if he is telling the truth, then thats that that. if he is lying, then he should get on with proposing it already.

right ?

dr

Link? If you're correct, I'll give you credit for it, but I haven't seen/heard of any such comment. Moreover, if the PA makes such an offer, it'll be the owners, not Bettman, who make the call on it.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
CarlRacki said:
Link? If you're correct, I'll give you credit for it, but I haven't seen/heard of any such comment. Moreover, if the PA makes such an offer, it'll be the owners, not Bettman, who make the call on it.
i will look for it ... but i heard it at a press conference.

stay tuned. i need the credit ! (lol)

dr
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
CarlRacki said:
OK, one more time ... the NHL made the last offer.


ok....big deal. Keep making offers. There's 2 parties here they should both be making offers. The thought that the owners should just be making offers after the players do is absurd and unacceptable.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
Jaded-Fan said:
You are right, but only slightly so.

2000 - 2003 they averaged almost 15,600 per year.
2000 - 2004 they averaged almost 14,700 so just below 15,000.

2004 they had their only significant drop which threw my figures slightly off, but not enough to warrent your comment, from basically ranging from 15,000 to almost 17,000 most years from 1986 on.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_pit_attendance.html


first, YOU STATED THE LAST 3 YEARS

now to fix the numbers to try and make yourself look better you put the last 4 years into it....lol

average of the last 3 years in Pittsburgh = 14091

no where near the average of 15,000 you claimed

it was just not true
 
Last edited:

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Newsguyone said:
2. Check out how many NHLers are without contract. A strict luxury tax will bring down salaries ** this year ** if you ask me. Add to that changes in arbitration and some changes to the qualifying offer rules, and you've got your salary reduction

3. It can lower them. ANd it would.
It will DEFLATE salaries. If not within a year, within a few years.

The vast majority of those unsigned players are restricted free agents. Player's who have already been offered 100% or better of their old deal. They are not covered by 24% reductions, so those salaries aren't coming down.

The rest are unrestricted. And UFA's have always been subject to any offer, so any lowering there is just due to free agency, not a tax. And who does that help? That just helps the big spending teams, the ones who usually go shopping for big name UFA's. The little guys don't go shopping now.

So you're right back where you started from. The salaries of the players on your team, the ones you have rights to, are *not* lowered by a tax. At all.

I see you've now added "changes in arbitration and qualifying offers". Yes, that's what I've been saying, those items are what will reduce salaries.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
CarlRacki said:
Beyond that, you're wrong to assume the entire purpose of a cap is cutting salaries. It is also designed to restore a level of competitive balance.

I really hope you don't beleive that. This has nothing to do with competitve balance. The other leagues you mentioned both have considerable revenue sharing to go along with their caps. If the NHL was interested in competitive balance, they'd share revenues too. No, this is all about profit.
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
Newsguyone said:
sorry. When I say cost-certainty, I meant cost-linkage.
It just seems obsene to me that the owners could be so arrogant as to tie salaries directly to revenue.
It's one of those ideas that sound great. Like: Wouldn't it be great if my mortgage was tied to my salary? Or wouldn't it be great if my car payment was tied to my wages?

But we live in a real world.

Apparently, the NHL owners don't have to take responsibility for their decisions.
That's an appealing argument on its face, but the competitive marketplace you and I inhabit in the "real world" differs from the rarefied labor market inside a professional sports league. As a starter, the CBA is being haggled over between, in effect, two monopolies.

It wasn't some strange twist of fate that led to salary caps in the NFL and NBA. It was a natural outcome.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Registered User
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 disagree. IMO this is'nt about the survival of Nashville or Carolina-This is about the survival of the entire league...As much as some people might like to think that their team has a CURRENT advantage-it would sink those teams and many, many more below it if the current system or one like it that allows salary esculation at a enormous rate is allowed to resurfice. Hockey IS NOT a big drawing sport-Hockey IS NOT very popular in the U.S. Salarys being esculated 5% or more yearly would be detrimental to the entire league IMHO.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
DR said:
wrong .. so how many budgets have you completed at a corporate level ?

salaries certainly are compared to revenues, but they are not set as a percentage of revenues.

I been a part of many budgets for business and/or projects and nearly all of them have the salary cost as a percentage of expected revenue (based on industry). In this case they would be doing the percentage based on actual revenues. A slight difference but we all know what happens when businesses or projects don't meet the expected revenue don't we.

thats because you wont find many industries that have the dynamics of the sports industry. Issues ranging from scarcity of talent to restriction of movement by the employee's.

Never said any different. Mine was a comment towards the players failure to understand the common man who looks at that percentage as exceptional. I happen to think yes it should be higher in in the 55-65% range.


its not a partnership and the players dont want anything to do with partnering with the owners. imagine being forced to be a partner with Jeremy Jacobs and Bill Wirtz. lol

It is a partnership as the NFL has shown. If they CBA has a percentage enshrined in it the union has a say in how the league is run. They have a say and responsibility that the league is being run effectively...like the NFL union has done.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
Link? If you're correct, I'll give you credit for it, but I haven't seen/heard of any such comment. Moreover, if the PA makes such an offer, it'll be the owners, not Bettman, who make the call on it.

Well. 8 owners anyway.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
misterjaggers said:
That's an appealing argument on its face, but the competitive marketplace you and I inhabit in the "real world" differs from the rarefied labor market inside a professional sports league. As a starter, the CBA is being haggled over between, in effect, two monopolies.

It wasn't some strange twist of fate that led to salary caps in the NFL and NBA. It was a natural outcome.

A natural outcome?
The owners were greedy and determined.
A little more so than the players, in both cases.

Regardless, I think one of the problems the NHL has is that some owners view their pro franchises like toys. They're super rich. They don't care if they lose money. They're playing fantasy sports in real life.
And if they lose money, well, they needed a tax shelter anyway.
Problem is, not all franchises have that advantage.
Don't get me wrong. It also a good investment.
In whatever business can you get tax payers to build half of your infrastructure and then sign it over to you ... for free.
(That's one reason why Canadian franchises are at a competitive disadvantage with us franchises.)
 

misterjaggers

Registered User
Sep 7, 2003
14,284
0
The Duke City
Newsguyone said:
A natural outcome?...
Yes. There's nothing like a nice free market supply and demand equilibrium when a players' union squares off against a league. They both struggle for an advantage, but fear being taken advantage of when signing a multi-year CBA. A salary cap provides a floor and a ceiling, provides predictability, provides regulation.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
octopi said:
Absolutly right. The Wings didn't get expensive until they'd won a few Cups. No trades they made before '99 were considered lopsided because of salaries. I'm pretty sure they didn't sign anyone considered to be a significant free agent before the 98-99 season. You can darn well bet the Senators would have a good deal higher roll had they won Cups, too.


I would agrue the payroll got out of control once Ken Holland took command of the ship. The Wings are gonna suffer in the future for his and Illitch win at all costs motto since 1999. But hey it's off topic but i needed a reason to crack Holland.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
A natural outcome?
The owners were greedy and determined.
A little more so than the players, in both cases.

Regardless, I think one of the problems the NHL has is that some owners view their pro franchises like toys. They're super rich. They don't care if they lose money. They're playing fantasy sports in real life.
And if they lose money, well, they needed a tax shelter anyway.
Problem is, not all franchises have that advantage.
Don't get me wrong. It also a good investment.
In whatever business can you get tax payers to build half of your infrastructure and then sign it over to you ... for free.
(That's one reason why Canadian franchises are at a competitive disadvantage with us franchises.)


There is only one reason that U.S. markets have an advantage and it's because player salaries and many other expenses are in U.S. $$$. The differential is not that bad right now and with a cost linkage system teams can once again be viable in places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Halifax and maybe even London. Higher coroporate taxes for teams in Canada are offset by slightly better TV revenues and merchandise sales.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
Link? If you're correct, I'll give you credit for it, but I haven't seen/heard of any such comment. Moreover, if the PA makes such an offer, it'll be the owners, not Bettman, who make the call on it.

When asked about it during his last press conference he said there are things he did not like about it and doesn't think it would work for the NHL..

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/

click on the press conference video. Be warned it's the very last question asked at the end of the press conference.
 

MarkZackKarl

Registered User
Jun 29, 2002
2,978
12
Ottawa
Visit site
omg

There is only one reason that U.S. markets have an advantage and it's because player salaries and many other expenses are in U.S. $$$. The differential is not that bad right now and with a cost linkage system teams can once again be viable in places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Halifax and maybe even London. Higher coroporate taxes for teams in Canada are offset by slightly better TV revenues and merchandise sales.

Ok, no wonder I put you on my ignore list. London and Halifax??? :joker: :lol
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
scaredsensfan said:
Ok, no wonder I put you on my ignore list. London and Halifax??? :joker: :lol

no kidding on Halifax. Halifax hasn't been able to support an AHL team. They don't have the arena and believe me no one in this town would support building one. The Metro Centre is barely good enough for junior! And the couple of exhibition games that have rolled into town in previous years have been poorly attended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->