Why the CBA won't be ratified.

[SENSible1*]

Decertify the Union

and

File anti-trust claims to receive damage payments if they win court cases .. but anti-trust law is tricky stuff .. but this CBA certainly because of how much each player may lose under the system including non-honouring of 04-05 contracts perhaps could be a good case .. IMO but only speculation ..

Not that I believe this will happen .. Just answering the question ...;

Nice to see you still like to explore fantasy land.

What do you think the pay structure for a team would look like with no PA?

How many teams would choose to operate?

What % of the current PA memberships would still have jobs?

What do you figure the average salary would be for the majority of the players?

This CBA is a bitter pill, but the alternative is FAR worse.

 

[Malefic74]

Caps might work in football, where guys making the minimum can stand on the sideline all year and not see action, or in basketball where a handful of stars play most of the game, but in hockey everybody plays.

You know I'd be perfectly happy to see most every 4th line in the league spend even more time on the bench. I'd be even happier to watch the big guns double shifting more often. I am not paying my hard-earned money to watch Boyd Devereaux or Eric Belanger flail their sticks around and dump pucks into the corner. Or George Laracque and Darren Langdon skating around glaring at people.

But if these rumored changes to the game work the way they should then that will probably be the result. Coaches won't want to play these guys with no skills other than defensive positioning. They can't afford to. As long as trapping and obstruction was allowed (wink-wink) there was no penalty to having those scrubs on the ice. As long as they could be in the right place they were no liability. If the game opens up, suddenly they are a liability and we'll see less of them.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Hmm.

I thought my numbers were pretty good, surprsied nobody looked at them.

The premise of this thread was that "75% of players would make 1.5 million or less, and that 48% would make near the league minimum", and htus the players would not ratify a deal which did this.

I just showed that as soon as the NHLPA offered the 24% rollback, 73% of NHL players knew their salaries would be less than 1.5 mil, and 30% knew that their salaries would be below $500k.


If they knew that back in December, when their union made the offer, than why would it get in the way of ratification now?

I was persuaded. I think the numbers took some people by surprise. I doubt they realized it wa already such a top-heavy league.

 

[Wisent]

The rumored deal is 54% of 1.8B or 32.4M per team. Some will be higher some will be lower but lets work with $32.5M.

$4.5M:star first line C
$4.0M:star goalie:
$3.0M:1st dman
$2.5M:2nd dman
2.50M:1st line RW
2.50M:1st line LW

We've spent $19M and we have one line and a goalie with $13.5M left and 17 guys to sign.

2.5M:2nd line C
1.5M:2nd line RW
1.5M:2nd line LW
1.5M:2nd d pair
1.0M:2nd d pair
1.1M:a goon or mucker

4.4M:11 Guys at the league minimum of $400k.

32.5M:total

Top guy only gets $4.5M so you can't take money from the top guys and give it to the minimum guys.
Of course this gets a bit better for the top teams. Depending on rumours it can get about $7M better. That's not much considering the top guys might get up to $6M and even up to 20% of $39M=$7.8M. But along with that we have the teams that can't even reach $32M. What about the teams at the floor of $24M?

The result:

48% of the players at league minimum.
70% of all players under $1.5M

CBA fails player ratification 75:25

666

Then slash off 1.5M fron your star center, 1M from the star goalie. .5M friom the second line center and it should look bertter.

 

[TonySCV]

The fact that this thread has nearly 60 posts just goes to show how bored people are.

Seriously people - saying this CBA won't be ratified is like saying the sun won't come up tomorrow, and I'd rather see a topic hypothesizing that.

- T

 

[ArtG]

why would a goon/mucker get 1.1M?

anyway, the cap figure should be closer to 38 maybe 40M and if the free agent pool gets larger I'm sure some of the small teams will pick up higher priced talent. Besides, if the NHL grows as a league, the cap will rise accordingly. So perhaps in 5 years it will be around 50, maybe 55M? with a floor of 35-40M... think about that.. every team in the league will be required to spend at least 40M!! It seems unheard of at this point but if the league grows then the players will definitely get their share.

 

[Resolute]

Decertify the Union

and

File anti-trust claims to receive damage payments if they win court cases .. but anti-trust law is tricky stuff .. but this CBA certainly because of how much each player may lose under the system including non-honouring of 04-05 contracts perhaps could be a good case .. IMO but only speculation ..

Not that I believe this will happen .. Just answering the question ...;

On what grounds could they sue?

Which anti-trust law is being violated by refusing to honor expired contracts?

 

[666]

In 2003-2004, this is how those numbers broke down:

131 players at $500k or less.
490 players at $1.5m or less.

So, in 03/04, approx 20% of players were at or below the new "league minimum".
And, in 03/04, approx 67% of players were at or below $1.5 million.

But the NHLPA offered that 24% rollback, so many other players knew that they'd be in this group as well.

So, with the 24% rollback, here's how many players 03/04 salaries would come in at 500k or less, and $1.5 million or less:

$500k or less: 220 = approx. 30%
$1.5m or less: 533 = approx. 73%

So 30% of the players knew they'd be making $500k or less once the NHLPA offered to cut salaries 24%, and 73% of them knew they'd be making $1.5m or less.

And, from the last post, we also know that 60% of them knew they'd be making $1.0m or less.

Cool numbers. I think there is a pretty big difference between 30% of players making less than $500k and 48% of players making $400k. But much more important is the fact that the players didn't ratifiy the 24% rollback either.

666

 

[Regency]

And the players alternative is????

Working at McDonalds!

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

My heart really bleeds for some meathead 3rd or 4th liner fringe scrub who is ONLY going to make 400k a year!!

Tough crap! go drive a milk truck for 8 bucks an hour and then you can piss and moan

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

As for Bob Goodenow...He is a JOKE who cost his "union" a whole year of earnings of which 20-30% of his "union" will never play another NHL game in their life because they will lose their jobs to the guys who played all this past year in the AHL or elsewhere and will walk into the NHL camps in 2 months ready to fly while the guys who missed a whole year will be lead foots. Very costly and very stupid arrogant move by Goodenow to call the bluff of the NHL owners.

As Avery said we pissed a whole year away for NOTHING!!!

 

[hillbillypriest]

I'll just end this thread now...
If the players fail to ratify it, look for the NHL to declare an impasse and go with replacement players. They will win it too, as they have legitimately shown to have negotiated in good faith. The players don't stand a chance in winning an impasse restriction. Walk into court with your "not involved" union leader, team union member leaders saying "I don't know whats going on, I have not talked to the union in weeks" will have the arbitrating court laughing.
Ratify it or enjoy making nothing and seeing replacements take your job.
They'll ratify it if they were smart.

Apparently your thought didn't end the thread, but it should have. This is the bottom line. Impasse is a slam dunk, and not only that (and more importantly), the facade of union solidarity has been broken. As a result, I would expect the vast majority of players that voted in favour of a rejected deal to cross. The only other card to play after that is decertification, but that ship has probably also sailed. Not ratifying the deal would be colossally stupid. Any player agent who advises somebody not to ratify should be fired!

HBP

 

[Mighty Duck]

Well if it isn't ratified, I look forward to Tie Domi serving me my morning coffee.

Maybe Tie Domi buys your hot dog stand, and you work for him for $7 per hr.

 

[MojoJojo]

On what grounds could they sue?

Which anti-trust law is being violated by refusing to honor expired contracts?

Management enters into an agreement with a player to pay him X mil per season. The player is willing to fulfill his side of the bargain, but management prevents him from doing so by means of a "lock out". Management then claims the contract is fulfilled. Its called breach of contract.

 

[GSC2k2*]

why would a goon/mucker get 1.1M?

anyway, the cap figure should be closer to 38 maybe 40M and if the free agent pool gets larger I'm sure some of the small teams will pick up higher priced talent. Besides, if the NHL grows as a league, the cap will rise accordingly. So perhaps in 5 years it will be around 50, maybe 55M? with a floor of 35-40M... think about that.. every team in the league will be required to spend at least 40M!! It seems unheard of at this point but if the league grows then the players will definitely get their share.

Apparently your math skills are not quite so sharp.

If they were more on a par with your average fifth grader, you might be able to figure out that in order to achieve a cap of $50 million, even assuming a salary range of 51-57% and a 54% overall share, you would have to have revenues of $2.63 billion to support a cap of $50 million. Assuming a straight 54% (which is the
ONLY relevant number, not the cap, in a linked system), revenues would have to be $2.78 billion.

Then you would note that $2.63 billion is 25% higher than the biggest year the NHL ever had, or that it is 46% higher than the reported $1.8 billion in estimated revenue that the NHL will make next season (an aggressively optimistic figure, seeing as about 6-8 teams have announced ticket price cuts so far).

 

[GSC2k2*]

Management enters into an agreement with a player to pay him X mil per season. The player is willing to fulfill his side of the bargain, but management prevents him from doing so by means of a "lock out". Management then claims the contract is fulfilled. Its called breach of contract.

Well, under the law that is not true even as you frame it. It is not a breach of contract. You might want to refrain from opining on the law on a board where actual lawyers post.

However, you frame the question incorrectly, since NHL contracts are for a specified time period, as opposed to a specific season. So your mistake is immaterial.

 

[norrisnick]

Well, under the law that is not true even as you frame it. It is not a breach of contract. You might want to refrain from opining on the law on a board where actual lawyers post.

However, you frame the question incorrectly, since NHL contracts are for a specified time period, as opposed to a specific season. So your mistake is immaterial.

Not only that, the contracts were entirely dependent upon the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Not only that, the contracts were entirely dependent upon the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Indeed ...

 

[Resolute]

What they said.

 

[ArtG]

Apparently your math skills are not quite so sharp.

If they were more on a par with your average fifth grader, you might be able to figure out that in order to achieve a cap of $50 million, even assuming a salary range of 51-57% and a 54% overall share, you would have to have revenues of $2.63 billion to support a cap of $50 million. Assuming a straight 54% (which is the
ONLY relevant number, not the cap, in a linked system), revenues would have to be $2.78 billion.

Then you would note that $2.63 billion is 25% higher than the biggest year the NHL ever had, or that it is 46% higher than the reported $1.8 billion in estimated revenue that the NHL will make next season (an aggressively optimistic figure, seeing as about 6-8 teams have announced ticket price cuts so far).

Buddy read my post, I said in five years and I said "perhaps"