Will players get a better offer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
There is no way in hell the players will get a better offer than the 42.5 million dollars. Goodenow has failed the players, his job was to get the players the best deal. Now they will only get a worse deal, but will have to live with losing over a billion dollars in income lost.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Hard to say if the players will ever get a better offer. The cap number might not be as high, but what was left on the table by the owners was a $42.5 million cap with no minimum (actually about $7 million based on minimum individual player salary) no hope that the max ever increases, a potential 25% paycut every time one's contract expired, four year ELS with no bonuses, magical disappearing revenue sharing and bizarre arbitration deferral rights by the teams. This is why Ted Saskin said it's hard to imagine a future deal being worse.

Some or all of that crap will be more favorable to players when (if) they finally do reach a deal, even if the max cap number is lower. Unfortunately, most fans and the media are fixated by a cap number, and ignore all of the other details.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
I bet the NHLPA would like linkage and cost certainty in their own league. If not, they will come crawling back when they are all broke and have no employable skills in the real world.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
Most of these players couldn't manage a restaurant without running it into the ground, yet we're to believe that these same people could formulate a new league from scratch that wouldn't hemmorage money? It'd in effect be a more ambitious version of the OSHL, and we saw what a hit that was.

It'd be glorified scrimmages, with lacrosse scores and negligible body contact...what fool would spend an average of 50 dollars to watch shinny?

The players would be far better served in channeling their energies towards getting the best deal they can before September instead of wasting their time and finite monetary resources on fool's gold like this.
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,696
22,079
Nova Scotia
Visit site
Players to start their own league? If 30 guys can't agree on how to run a business, try to get 600-700 guys to agree on something...it could never happen, the logistics and money it would take...then there is the fans, 80% plus of whom feel that the players have to restructure themselves and their expectations of earnings so that whatever league they play in doesn't go ***$ up...
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,504
4,381
The players would have a monumental task to start a ten team league let alone one to accomodate all of their membership. Starting up a new league is a guaranteed money loser, short term and risky long term. Don't see it happening.
 

futurcorerock

Registered User
Nov 15, 2003
6,831
0
Columbus, OH
I dont think theres any way the PA can expect an equal or better offer. Look at what's facing the NHL in terms of ammunition against the PA:

1) ESPN Looking to bail out on it's commitment to hockey

2) NBC's deal only being a one-year with an option

3) Millions in lost ad revenue from teams and their expired contracts with promotions

All the owners have to do is reload with those issues and the NHLPA has nothing to debunk those claims. They are visible woes that the NHL could never amplify, even if it wanted to.
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
The Messenger said:
They play for Gate Receipts ..

They Travel around the country to many Areana's and play games ..

Average 15,000 fans X $50/ticket = $ 750,000 per game .. Building owner gets cut say $100,000 + Parking, Concessions etc and then the 44 players divided up the rest giving them each $14,500 - $15.000 /game per player.

Could buy them losts of time until the NHL changed its stance ..

Who do you think is going to loan them a building that seats 15 000? The NHL? :lol:
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
The Messenger said:
Hamilton, Winnipeg, Quebec, etc etc .. The AHL areana seat more then 9000 fans ..

but just examples ..

Yeah, because Winnipeg and Quebec will really want to support the same players who put them out of business. :shakehead
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,507
14,384
Pittsburgh
No one tell the six that voted that the players will do as well or better about that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny thing. They have had a rough enough month with the lockout negotiations.
 

Habber

Registered User
May 31, 2002
2,030
0
Saskatoon, Sask.
Visit site
There's no way they could get into 15,000 seat arenas, and probably even 9,000 wouldn't happen.

A lot of these arenas have a lease with a junior or minor league teams that have no-competition clauses in them, meaning that for any league to play games in that arena would require approval from the team. Given the relationship ($$$) that the NHL has with the CHL and AHL, I wouldn't think they'd let that happen.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
I feel it will get better as long as the players are able to wait through further negotiations. If the union folds or starts it's own league, in the end that's obviously going to mean a worse deal in the NHL.

However, if the union doesn't do either of those 2 I think the offer will get better simply because the only way this is getting solved at this point is negotiations, and during negotiations both sides come towards each other and meet somewhere in the middle.

Impasse is not an option for the NHL right now and won't be unless the union does something stupid like taking back their cap offer...hopefully they won't do that. Outside of that, there is clearly no impasse right now and the only way an impasse is created is if the owners propose linkage again. At that point the owners would have an impasse but the problem is that offer would be considered by many to be bad faith bargaining. Going from a cap to linkage when the other side will not take linkage is pretty much going backwards in negotiations and it's hard to get an impasse when you do that.

Now I understand they could go back to their 32-42 million linkage deal that was proposed a couple of weeks ago and argue that the damage done to the league is so great that they can't survive without linkage. But that's probably as far back as the NHL can go while avoiding bad faith bargaining...The NLRB might buy it and uphold that deal, problem is that deal probably wouldn't be good enough for the NHL anyway. Any linkage means there is a floor and if the NHL is going to win an impasse that floor isn't going to be able to be much lower than 28-30 million considering what they have previously proposed. But obviously it would be hard to pay replacement players that much for as long as it would take the NLRB to decide and at the same time a bunch of teams would lose money anyway with that payroll. Winning an impasse with linkage could theoretically put more teams out of business than just negotiating a hard cap at $45 million, and in order to attempt for the impasse the league would be taking a huge risk because their case isn't great and if they lose they are on the hook for about $1.5 billion in player salaries that were lost from the lockout. The risk is much greater than the reward. So, I doubt the NHL even attempts an impasse.

So assuming there is no impasse attempted and hoping the union doesn't do something stupid like start their own league, the only way I see it getting solved is for the two sides to negotiate a deal. I don't think either side would take the chance of not starting the season on time, so over the summer I think they will negotiate a deal. And negotiating means a better deal for both sides than what the other side has on the table right now. The cap will end up around $45 million and there will be no salary floor, because at this point any salary floor the NHL has is going to put a couple teams out of business considering how far their revenues are going to fall.
 

fan mao rong

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
968
0
port royal , pa
Visit site
NYRetc---Oh, they'd have a hard time paying replacement players according to CBA? They could pay them , and probably would pay them (if they were indeed replacement players) under try-out contracts. They would be below league minimums. As far as Impasse goes, as the "Legal Brain Trust" on here will endlessly repeat, Impasse is a temporary condition. If it is moved out of , it can moved back into. They can propose a new contract, bargain on it for a time, and reach Impasse. And a 45 million cap. That era is over.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,507
14,384
Pittsburgh
nyr7andcounting said:
I feel it will get better as long as the players are able to wait through further negotiations. If the union folds or starts it's own league, in the end that's obviously going to mean a worse deal in the NHL.

However, if the union doesn't do either of those 2 I think the offer will get better simply because the only way this is getting solved at this point is negotiations, and during negotiations both sides come towards each other and meet somewhere in the middle.

.......

Your post assumes that there is money to give to get to the middle. It is more and more obvious that is erroneous for all but a couple of markets. Hockey of all the sports has a crap television deal and almost all franchises losing money and yet the players currently take by far of any sport the largest percentage of revenues. And every one of their offers is a band aid at best, none doing much to change the hemoraging of revenues from most clubs. Even at $42.5 million most clubs would lose money for 2 years at least. True, the various owners true recompense is the thrill of owning a team, the cache of buying their way into being a celebrety, a city leader and one of the best known ones at that. That said, they will only lose so much. Obviously, by their unity, hockey is beyond the point that the owners will accept.

You spin a nice yarn, but the money is not there to let that fantasy play out.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,481
2,524
Edmonton
ha ha

The Messenger said:
They play for Gate Receipts ..

They Travel around the country to many Areana's and play games ..

Average 15,000 fans X $50/ticket = $ 750,000 per game .. Building owner gets cut say $100,000 + Parking, Concessions etc and then the 44 players divided up the rest giving them each $14,500 - $15.000 /game per player.

Could buy them losts of time until the NHL changed its stance ..

Thats a joke right?

Not to mention... every detail, but I just have one question, whos going to pay $50 to see a meaningless scrimmage?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,507
14,384
Pittsburgh
AM said:
Thats a joke right?

Not to mention... every detail, but I just have one question, whos going to pay $50 to see a meaningless scrimmage?


An absolute joke. Right now I can get season tickets to my Pens, 40 games, for as low as $15 a ticket. 80% of the seats in the house are $30 or less a ticket in a season ticket plan. And the players think that they will get $50 for a meaningless game? Excuse me, but . . . :lol

That type of comment likely reflects the players thoughts and likely explains much toward the players mindset of their value though. Which is one reason we hav e reached this impass. Hey players, wake up, we really do not care about you as much as you all think we do.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
fan mao rong said:
NYRetc---Oh, they'd have a hard time paying replacement players according to CBA? They could pay them , and probably would pay them (if they were indeed replacement players) under try-out contracts. They would be below league minimums. As far as Impasse goes, as the "Legal Brain Trust" on here will endlessly repeat, Impasse is a temporary condition. If it is moved out of , it can moved back into. They can propose a new contract, bargain on it for a time, and reach Impasse. And a 45 million cap. That era is over.


they wont even try to bring replacements in...if they keep there latest offer at hard cap (let's say they drop to 39), the NLRB will still say you guys are both on a hard cap and that the PA is bargaining faithfully...so if they stick to a hard cap they can't...if they drop back to linkage then try to declare, even if they win there impasse they won't be able to pay replacements the floor of the linkage...they won't make a profit...impasse is not an option, hence, replacements arent either
 

StanTheMan

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
68
3
Visit site
since i don't know all the aspects of the nhl's last proposal, i don't know if the players will get a better offer. but, when it comes to the salary cap issue, it doesn't seem logical that they'll even get as good an offer as 42.5 again. (note: yes, i know i used the word 'logical' - it's a leap of faith). i think if goodnow were smart and aggressive, he would tell the players they are going to bite the bullet on the cap and work for every other advantage they can get, including the escalation of the cap (if not right away, then after a couple of years, at least). he could absolutely whammy the league in the pr dept. with an offer LOWER than the league's last proposal (say $40 million) but be willing to go even lower (say $37 million)... but the balance that with earlier unrestricted free agency, increased benefits from the league (including increased payments into the pension pool), and whatever else they want. i think it would be hard for the nhl to give more on non-cap issues once they get a reasonable (don't know what that is) cap.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
fan mao rong said:
NYRetc---Oh, they'd have a hard time paying replacement players according to CBA? They could pay them , and probably would pay them (if they were indeed replacement players) under try-out contracts. They would be below league minimums. As far as Impasse goes, as the "Legal Brain Trust" on here will endlessly repeat, Impasse is a temporary condition. If it is moved out of , it can moved back into. They can propose a new contract, bargain on it for a time, and reach Impasse. And a 45 million cap. That era is over.

I don't see how a team could pay players under try-out contracts if there is a salary floor with linkage. Let's just say by some chance it takes the NLRB a whole season to decide on upholding an impasse by the NHL and let's say the PA doesn't fold during that time. No matter how you put it, if there is linkage that the NHL would have during an impasse each team is going to have to pay that floor level. Considering what it would take to win an impasse, that floor level is going to be around $30 million. They can pay whoever whatever they want, but it's going to have to equal at least $30 million if the impasse where to last almost a whole season. In that case, more teams would be in danger of folding being how much they have to pay "scabs" than if the NHL just continued to negotiate with the union and eventually came to a deal.
 

Luc Labelle

Lucius 895 Injuries
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2005
774
3,182
Winnipeg
nyr7andcounting said:
I don't see how a team could pay players under try-out contracts if there is a salary floor with linkage.
Upon impasse, the last CBA offered would be implemented. The final offer made by the NHL had no salary floor.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Luc Labelle said:
Upon impasse, the last CBA offered would be implemented. The final offer made by the NHL had no salary floor.

that is correct...BUT the NLRB will never rule for an impasse when both sides are are on a hard cap and only 10 mil or so away
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad