Why I Hate the NHLPA

[dawgbone]

The players put a very specific offer on the table. The owners have not. We do not know what the players will accept - whether they will make even more concessions - but there is an offer. They want exactly the same CBA, but they know they can't get that. So they made four very specific proposals for change. If the player offer had been accepted, we all know what the system would look like.

So what would the system look like? What were the complete numbers involved?

The Players’ four-point framework features a luxury tax, player salary rollbacks, changes to the Entry Level System, and a revenue-sharing plan.

Where are the hard numbers?

Is it any different from this?

1.) A hard salary cap imposed on payrolls that teams would not be allowed to exceed.
2.) A Performance-Based Salary System, in which a player's individual compensation would be based, in part, on negotiated objective criteria and, in part, on individual and team performance.
3.) A Payroll Range System in which teams could spend within a negotiated range of payrolls.
4.) A system premised on the Centralized Negotiation of Player Contracts, where the League would negotiate individual player contracts, either with players and their agents or with the Union directly.
5.) A Player Partnership Payroll Plan (P-4), which would involve individual player compensation being individually negotiated on the basis of "units" allocated for regular-season payrolls, supplemented by lucrative bonuses for team playoff performance.
6.) A Salary Slotting System, which would contemplate each team being assigned a series of "salary slots" at various levels, each of which would be allocated among each team's players pursuant to individual player-team negotiation.

Sorry, but both are vague.

I don't expect the owners to have tabled their absolutely final position, but I think the players have a right to expect the owners to declare an opening position that has some specific proposals. The owners even deny that they have tabled a hard cap at $31 million. They have tabled "concepts" and fans haven't even seen their "concepts".

Tom

They want cost certainty... that is their position. Their initial position was through a salary cap, but that was their starting position, just like the NHLPA's starting position was "The system works".

 

[Seachd]

No. The NHL could continue, but they would no longer be able to put any restrictions on the competition for labour. If the season is cancelled in January and the players decided to respond by decertifying, the first beneficiary would be Sidney Crosby.

Could they negociate with another union?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Could they negociate with another union?

No. The players choose the union or whether to have a union.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

No. The NHL could continue, but they would no longer be able to put any restrictions on the competition for labour. If the season is cancelled in January and the players decided to respond by decertifying, the first beneficiary would be Sidney Crosby.

Sidney's agent would file an anti-trust lawsuit. The courts would throw out the entry draft as anti-competitive and Crosby's agent would start fielding offers.Ilya

Kovalchuk would file an anti-trust lawsuit against the standard NHL contract and the courts would strike down Atlanta's "right" to the employee and Kovalchuk would become a UFA. And so on. A salary cap would be declared illegal.

Tom

I beg to differ. He has the option to find another leauge to play for, including the CHL, the ECHL, and several european leagues. It's not anti-competetive, providing Crosby has options outside of the NHL, and the NHL cannot prevent him from going there, if he so chooses. The NHL could go through the legal matter of having themselves declared as one giant corporation, with 30 separate companies in it's fold. It certainly wouldn't be the first do such a thing (except maybe in the sporting world). Once there, it's simply like assigning an employee to work in one specific area, whether it's accounting, or Atlanta. He always has the option to go to Europe, or the CHL...

They then of course could set their own budget restrictions and everything else they deem necessary, provided the player is no longer tied into the NHL like they currently are.

Sure, if you want, you can dissolve Kovalchuks contract, but if he wants to play in the NHL, he's still property of Atlanta, and is restricted to negotiate with them until a certain age that the league can appoint. If he doesn't want to play in the NHL, and would rather sign with an AHL team, or an RSL team, he's free to do it... it is afterall his choice.

Naturally this opens a whole new can of worms, namely instead of a CBA defining everything, the courts would (as in any case of a contract), which isn't good for anyone.

The fact of the matter is, if they truely wanted to, they could find a work around to do it... it would be like anyone else looking for employment.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The original player offer was:

1) A salary rollback of 5% on all existing contracts ($100 million estimated savings)

2) Rolling back entry level salary to $875,000 with bonuses totalling no more than 25% of base salary (estimated savings $60 million)

3) A graduated luxury tax on all payrolls over the median payroll and a distribution of luxury tax proceeds to teams below the median payroll. (estimated taxes to be distributed $30-35 million.)

4) Revenue sharing that was reduced to $80-100 million because the owners thought the original offer included too much revenue sharing.

That's specific.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I beg to differ. He has the option to find another leauge to play for, including the CHL, the ECHL, and several european leagues. It's not anti-competetive, providing Crosby has options outside of the NHL, and the NHL cannot prevent him from going there, if he so chooses.

Read the case law. There are several excellent threads on the subject on these boards. The teams cannot put any restrictions at all on the competition for labour absent a CBA and the NHLPA.

Period.

Tom

 

[Seachd]

No. The players choose the union or whether to have a union.

I mean new players. If this whole "replacement players" thing happens, could the new players form their own union?

 

[dawgbone]

The original player offer was:

1) A salary rollback of 5% on all existing contracts ($100 million estimated savings)

2) Rolling back entry level salary to $875,000 with bonuses totalling no more than 25% of base salary (estimated savings $60 million)

3) A graduated luxury tax on all payrolls over the median payroll and a distribution of luxury tax proceeds to teams below the median payroll. (estimated taxes to be distributed $30-35 million.)

4) Revenue sharing that was reduced to $80-100 million because the owners thought the original offer included too much revenue sharing.

That's specific.

Tom

Thats a lot of estimations.

1). 5% rollback doesn't save $100mil... it would if salaries were $2.0 bil league wide... but let's not let basic math step in the way of a good story.

2). Weren't those TSN's numbers? I don't recall the NHLPA using those numbers.

3). That's a very general number... what hard numbers were used to come up with that? Surely, there must be a target of where the threshold begins, and at what % the tax would be.

4). So what % of each teams revenues would that be? Where are the hard numbers?

All they are are estimations, and from what you've said (5% rollback saving $100mil), the numbers don't add up.

 

[X0ssbar]

Perhaps its time for the NHLPA to investigate it, including ordering their own audit of the books. Something Goodenow should have done years ago. If they had, they would have more sympathy among the fans today. The owners did their homework, the players still have do theirs just to get on the same playing field...the clock is ticking Mr.Goodenow and Mr.Saskin and it looks like you can't play 'the owners are bluffing' card for much longer...

This sheds a little light on the issue:

"Same thing with hiring auditors. The PA won't accept the independent audit the NHL commissioned. The league offered the PA to do their own. They chose not to.

Why?

Because if they have the figures, actual or not, they don't want to admit the system has problems. It's a $2.1 billion US hand of poker and this won't be winner take all.

It will, almost certainly, come down to legal interpretations and judgments and every time an owner opens up his mouth, the way Atlanta Thrashers owner Steve Belkin did this week, the PA must be applauding in the background."

Full Article:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/10/15/670616.html

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Thats a lot of estimations.

1). 5% rollback doesn't save $100mil... it would if salaries were $2.0 bil league wide... but let's not let basic math step in the way of a good story.

It is a 5% rollback on every year of the contract. Bertuzzi has 3 years left at $18 million. The proposal costs him $900,000.

This is all beside the point. The NHL does not have to like the proposal or even agree that the savings amounted to what the NHLPA estimates they will be. The point is that the proposals were specific. There were numbers that could be crunched. Each team could look at it and say to themselves "What impact will this have on my bottom line?"

If I'm Todd Bertuzzi or Ilya Kovalchuk, how much does the NHL proposal cost me? There is zero way for them to even guess at it.

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I mean new players. If this whole "replacement players" thing happens, could the new players form their own union?

The whole replacement players thing does not happen if the players decertify. The owners can't hire replacement players without lifting the lockout. The process goes:

1) The owners declare an impasse, implement their CBA and lift the lockout.

2) The players decertify to invalidate that CBA and report to work.

3) The lawsuits start and the courts knock out each and every anti-competitive position in the NHL bylaws.

4) I'd guess ten teams close their doors. The 500 players who are left make more money in total than the 750 players would make in total under the $31 million cap.

Tom

 

[SuperUnknown]

It is a 5% rollback on every year of the contract. Bertuzzi has 3 years left at $18 million. The proposal costs him $900,000.

This is all beside the point. The NHL does not have to like the proposal or even agree that the savings amounted to what the NHLPA estimates they will be. The point is that the proposals were specific. There were numbers that could be crunched. Each team could look at it and say to themselves "What impact will this have on my bottom line?"

If I'm Todd Bertuzzi or Ilya Kovalchuk, how much does the NHL proposal cost me? There is zero way for them to even guess at it.

Tom

So in essence, it's a saving of $100M over multiple years? Not really the greatest deal...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So in essence, it's a saving of $100M over multiple years? Not really the greatest deal...

At least you can look at it and say "Not the greatest deal." Tell me what the owners are offering so I can evaluate it the same way.

Tom

 

[X0ssbar]

At least you can look at it and say "Not the greatest deal." Tell me what the owners are offering so I can evaluate it the same way.

Tom

31 million dollar cap per team. Average player salary 1.3 mil (down from 1.8).

 

[SuperUnknown]

At least you can look at it and say "Not the greatest deal." Tell me what the owners are offering so I can evaluate it the same way.

Tom

Obviously, with the current state of affairs in the NHL, the players are going to try to salvage what they can in the next CBA. It's not like the players are going to get much (if anything) out of the new CBA.

 

[I in the Eye]

The teams cannot put any restrictions at all on the competition for labour absent a CBA and the NHLPA.

Period.

Tom

Unless, I think, the NHL 're-starts' as NHL Corp. - where the teams are all owned by the same business entity...

 

[SuperUnknown]

Unless, I think, the NHL 're-starts' as NHL Corp. - where the teams are all owned by the same business entity...

Then again, I doubt that without the NHLPA the players would get the same advantages (and money). Bye Bye guaranteed contracts. Hi to no salary divulgation (making it hard to "compare"). No minimum contract amount (teams could pay $100000 players for their fourth line and so on). If there was no advantage to having a union, the players wouldn't have the NHLPA, it would be a money sink. Sooner or later, players would create a new union.

Else, the NHL teams could hire a bunch of bums who'd negociate a new CBA, and the players wanting to come back to the NHL would have to agree to that CBA.

I don't think the owners would cry if they would run a league without a union...

 

[Rabid Ranger]

My problem with the NHLPA is that their priorities are out of whack.

The NHL is fighting for the health of the league, to keep my team and others where they are, and to try to keep everyone competitive. The NHL wants cost certainty to try to attain this.

The NHLPA is fighting for money. The players refuse cost certainty because they don't want it. Not a valid reason, in my opinion.

I agree with this. The NHLPA is picking the wrong time in history to be waging a war over salaries. There is no way their stand will be looked at sympathetically in the arena of public opinion. The NHL, despite what many would like to believe is on the skids, and is in reality a fringe sport. The players have no right to be making the money they do with the horrible shape the league is in. Until those salaries match the reality of the NHL, the league will teeter on the verge of implosion. The sooner the players recognize this the better.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If there was no advantage to having a union, the players wouldn't have the NHLPA, it would be a money sink.

True. There are benefits. The most important one is the unions have built up the case law to the point that sports leagues must have a CBA or they are in violation of the anti-trust law. The owners have to make sure there remains an advantage.

If the result of having a union is what the owners propose, hockey players are better off without one.

I don't think the owners would cry if they would run a league without a union...

Right. The same guys who need a CBA that is "idiot proof" will be fiscally disciplined when every player is a free agent. Sidney Crosby would get 10 years, 100 million, guaranteed. Edmonton would be icing an AHL team until they folded.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

Right. The same guys who need a CBA that is "idiot proof" will be fiscally disciplined when every player is a free agent. Sidney Crosby would get 10 years, 100 million, guaranteed. Edmonton would be icing an AHL team until they folded.

Tom

Once again, without a union, they'd be free to set a maximum limit on their spending.

 

[I in the Eye]

Right. The same guys who need a CBA that is "idiot proof" will be fiscally disciplined when every player is a free agent. Sidney Crosby would get 10 years, 100 million, guaranteed. Edmonton would be icing an AHL team until they folded.

Tom

I think you're right, unless NHL Corp. dictates from headquarters what the salaries are to be... Which I think they would be able to do - If I remember my previous discussion correctly (with a lawyer/law student) in another thread...

This is the ultimate "idiot-proof" solution (if legal)...

I personally like having the union (and an independent relationship between franchises) to help keep the NHL 'honest'... I'd hate to see the NHL in the hands of a single company or entity...

 

[SuperUnknown]

Right. The same guys who need a CBA that is "idiot proof" will be fiscally disciplined when every player is a free agent. Sidney Crosby would get 10 years, 100 million, guaranteed. Edmonton would be icing an AHL team until they folded.

Tom

Thing is, without syndicate protection, teams could end contract if the players don't deliver what they were expected by the contractual terms (making it void). No pension plan, etc... I doubt the NHLPA will ever decertify.

 

[hunter1909*]

say you two lovebirds need to set up your own private encounter...

this is about the nhlpa needing to be destroyed

LOL

 

[thinkwild]

Teams are free to set a maximum limit on their spending now. ITs called a budget. They cant conspire to set salaries at a level in restraint of trade unless the players have agreed to it in a CBA.

And I keep hearing this line about there is no guaranteed contracts in a free market. Excuse me? There certainly are.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Teams are free to set a maximum limit on their spending now. ITs called a budget. They cant conspire to set salaries at a level in restraint of trade unless the players have agreed to it in a CBA.

And I keep hearing this line about there is no guaranteed contracts in a free market. Excuse me? There certainly are.

Contracts are just that... contracts. When two people sign a contract they both agree to terms. Failure to meet those terms will void the contract. Since players are paid for performances (past performances), failure to meet those performances would void the contract. This can't happen with the current CBA, but if there was no CBA, you can bet that it would be like this. Not that the owners would have to guarantee contracts, mind you.