HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   NHLPA's Offer... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=102533)

BLONG7 09-09-2004 11:01 AM

NHLPA's Offer...
 
We know that it will not include a CAP... will the owners consider the offer... or are they gonna be like the PA and just scrap it without even looking at it and possibly making a counter proposal? Anyone know when the info will be given to the media?

Motown Beatdown 09-09-2004 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLONG7
We know that it will not include a CAP... will the owners consider the offer... or are they gonna be like the PA and just scrap it without even looking at it and possibly making a counter proposal? Anyone know when the info will be given to the media?


I think they'll discard the offer and counter with the same offers they've tried to pass on the union for months. The Players are at least trying to reach an offer. If the owners think they can break the union they are in for a surprise. Sure the owners have a 300 million dollar war chest, which will be gone in the year. Where as 75% of the players can go years without a paycheck and the alot of the 25% can go to Europe and play if they really need the money.

Lets not also forget the teams making money and there a those making a lot of money will want to get this done as soon as possible. Because unlike other franchises they have a clue and know who to make the CBA work for them, not against them.

Chelios 09-09-2004 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWI19
I think they'll discard the offer and counter with the same offers they've tried to pass on the union for months. The Players are at least trying to reach an offer.

This is the union`s first offer since October, how can people say that they are at least trying to reach an agreement when they haven`t even made an offer in almost a year. Making an offer this late is just a PR stunt to try to convince people like you that they are making a last ditch offer to resolve this situation and that the owners are the bad guys.

Quote:

Because unlike other franchises they have a clue and know who to make the CBA work for them, not against them.
What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with making the CBA work for them , its about them being able to afford working in the CBA. Smaller markets don`t have that luxury.

degroat* 09-09-2004 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWI19
The Players are at least trying to reach an offer.

Their last offer hardly qualified for 'trying to reach an offer'. I suspect this one will also fail to qualify.

Quote:

If the owners think they can break the union they are in for a surprise. Sure the owners have a 300 million dollar war chest, which will be gone in the year. Where as 75% of the players can go years without a paycheck and the alot of the 25% can go to Europe and play if they really need the money.
Any owner that is losing money, which is most of the teams, will lose LESS money by NOT playing hockey than they would by accepting a NHLPA tilted CBA.

If the owners stand firm, they'll win. It has worked in both Basketball and Football.

Motown Beatdown 09-09-2004 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stich
Any owner that is losing money, which is most of the teams, will lose LESS money by NOT playing hockey than they would by accepting a NHLPA tilted CBA.

If the owners stand firm, they'll win. It has worked in both Basketball and Football.

They might lose less this year, but after that when that war chest is gone they are gonna lose alot more. And dont let the owners fool you, they are not losing as much as they like to tell you. Sure some teams are losing money but how much of that has to do with poor management? Just like i bet the company you work for doesn't give you the employee accurate figures.

It worked in basketball? The average NBA salary is over 4 million dollars a year and players make more money that some NHL teams. If the owners won, i hate to see salaries if they had lost.

I will agree the NFLPA got worked, but wait till their CBA is up. Now thats gonna be ugly

Brodeur 09-09-2004 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWI19
It worked in basketball? The average NBA salary is over 4 million dollars a year and players make more money that some NHL teams. If the owners won, i hate to see salaries if they had lost.

Basketball is a bit different, especially in terms of the sheer roster size. NBA generates more revenue and only has half the players that the NHL does.

DownFromNJ 09-09-2004 03:17 PM

Quote:

It worked in basketball? The average NBA salary is over 4 million dollars a year and players make more money that some NHL teams. If the owners won, i hate to see salaries if they had lost.
Thrice as many players per team in NHL.

Terrier 09-09-2004 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodeur
Basketball is a bit different, especially in terms of the sheer roster size. NBA generates more revenue and only has half the players that the NHL does.

Sheer roster size is correct. Not only does the NBA employ fewer players, a fair number of them(and correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not exactly a basketball maven), the ones below 7 or 8 on the depth chart, don't play very much and get paid minimal salaries. By contrast, in hockey, generally the only player who stays on the bench is the backup goaltender. Adding a franchise in the NBA doesn't dilute the talent pool nearly as badly as adding a franchise in the NHL.

thinkwild 09-09-2004 05:01 PM

I imagine the owners will do the same theatrics for a photo-op as the last time where they hardly read the proposal and toss back on the table before walking out.

Like too many fans, the owners want a lockout, not an early agreement

Slats432 09-09-2004 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thinkwild

Like many fans, the owners want a system that works, not an early agreement

There...much better.

thinkwild 09-09-2004 05:25 PM

I acknowledge that your heart is in the right place. I used to think it didnt work too. :)

hockeytown9321 09-09-2004 05:39 PM

Here's the response to today's meeting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...19&hubName=nhl

Winger98 09-09-2004 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Here's the response to today's meeting:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...19&hubName=nhl

It really doesn't sound like a bad beginning to a deal, and the fact that the NHL backed away from it entirely is disappointing. Daly's quip about how it doesn't guarentee how it would effect every team's spending is unrealistic and paints the NHL Gm's and Owners in a pretty pathetic light that their hands have to not only be slapped but physically restrained from dipping into the cookie jar too often.

A luxury tax at $50m with a stiff penalty (say a 100% tax) would be very effective, imo. That, along with a refined RFA system and revising the rookie cap nonsense would be a very reasonable expectation for this CBA and not losing a year of hockey, along with a bunch of fans. It's taken ten years for the NHL to get to this sorry state of affairs, and they can't expect to "fix" it all in one big move.

degroat* 09-09-2004 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWI19
They might lose less this year, but after that when that war chest is gone they are gonna lose alot more. And dont let the owners fool you, they are not losing as much as they like to tell you. Sure some teams are losing money but how much of that has to do with poor management? Just like i bet the company you work for doesn't give you the employee accurate figures.

The war chest is irrelevent. All it will do is help franchises cover their fixed costs. Even without that teams will lose less by not playing a single game than they would if they continued under the current CBA or anything similar.

Quote:

It worked in basketball? The average NBA salary is over 4 million dollars a year and players make more money that some NHL teams. If the owners won, i hate to see salaries if they had lost.
LOL. Yes, it worked in basketball. Their salaries are tied to revenues. What a stupid number that was that you brought up.

degroat* 09-09-2004 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winger98
It really doesn't sound like a bad beginning to a deal, and the fact that the NHL backed away from it entirely is disappointing. Daly's quip about how it doesn't guarentee how it would effect every team's spending is unrealistic and paints the NHL Gm's and Owners in a pretty pathetic light that their hands have to not only be slapped but physically restrained from dipping into the cookie jar too often.

A luxury tax at $50m with a stiff penalty (say a 100% tax) would be very effective, imo. That, along with a refined RFA system and revising the rookie cap nonsense would be a very reasonable expectation for this CBA and not losing a year of hockey, along with a bunch of fans. It's taken ten years for the NHL to get to this sorry state of affairs, and they can't expect to "fix" it all in one big move.

First of all, there was no mention of 100% taxation and considering their last proposal was a 10% taxation I really doubt it's anywhere near that.

Secondly, even if it WAS 100% it still would be an absolute joke of an offer.

A $50M CAP would be a cap at 75% of revenues... which is where the league is at now.

Epsilon 09-10-2004 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stich
First of all, there was no mention of 100% taxation and considering their last proposal was a 10% taxation I really doubt it's anywhere near that.

Secondly, even if it WAS 100% it still would be an absolute joke of an offer.

A $50M CAP would be a cap at 75% of revenues... which is where the league is at now.

Your statement presents the red herring of making it sound like every team is obligated to spend the full cap amount. This isn't the NFL where every team spends the same amount on salaries every year. A cap or something similar at 50 million can work because it drags the biggest spenders down from the 65-80 range, and hence allows the smaller spenders to shave several millions off of their payrolls as well.

Jets4Life 09-10-2004 12:40 AM

The offer that the NHLPA brought to the table is a complete joke. They could have at least caved in a bit. It just proves how brainwashed Goodenaw has left the players. Think about it. The average career of an NHL'er is what.....7-8 years?

The average salary is 1.8 million. If the lockout lasts say....a year and 1/2, the players are giving up as much as 20-25% OF their lifetime earnings. That may not sound like much for the average North american who makes 35,000-40,000/year. But these players live in luxury. They have Ferrari's, million dollar lakeside homes, etc. How are they going to keep up the affluent lifestyle if they don't have any income coming in for a year or two?

Maybe they could play in Europe and make 10-15% of what the NHL pays them. This is why the Union will crumble. In 2005, when the next season starts, I can guarantee, you will see dozens of players break from the union, and side with the owners.

degroat* 09-10-2004 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon
Your statement presents the red herring of making it sound like every team is obligated to spend the full cap amount. This isn't the NFL where every team spends the same amount on salaries every year. A cap or something similar at 50 million can work because it drags the biggest spenders down from the 65-80 range, and hence allows the smaller spenders to shave several millions off of their payrolls as well.

A cap at $50M would do nothing for the league.

Winger98 09-10-2004 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stich
A cap at $50M would do nothing for the league.

Going by last season's team salaries and bringing every team over $50 million in payroll down to exactly $50 million, the total in team salaries for the league would be approximately $1.2 billion, and would put the average team salary at around $40 million.

Going by your numbers, $1.2 billion would be a significant drop from the 75% level where the league claims to currently stand. Is it perfect? Of course not, but to look at these negotiations as a means to achieving the perfect business world (for the owners) is unrealistic.

Russian Fan 09-10-2004 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life
The offer that the NHLPA brought to the table is a complete joke. They could have at least caved in a bit. It just proves how brainwashed Goodenaw has left the players. Think about it. The average career of an NHL'er is what.....7-8 years?

How much should they cave ? 5% paycut is 5% paycut. Putting a luxury tax is stabilizing the inflation of salary. Entry Draft signing will be stabilize. They offer between 190-220M$ Millions of cuts. + it will decrease the salary of 5% which will not be gained for 2-3 years. (-3% in MLB even if only the Yankees pay the TAX).

Maybe you need to understand that's it's not the players to caved but to both to compromised & that is completely different. You have the owner who just don't cave but stand firm in only 1 proposal : A CAP which is WORSE than the NHLPA who is still offering something. 6 proposal for a cap is still 1 proposal divide in 6 different way to do it.

right now it's not a negotiation it's a unilateral offer from the owner , take it or leave it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life
The average salary is 1.8 million. If the lockout lasts say....a year and 1/2, the players are giving up as much as 20-25% OF their lifetime earnings. That may not sound like much for the average North american who makes 35,000-40,000/year. But these players live in luxury. They have Ferrari's, million dollar lakeside homes, etc. How are they going to keep up the affluent lifestyle if they don't have any income coming in for a year or two?

Again : are the owners only making 45,000$ ???? You blame the players having ferraris but it's ok for an owner to have 4-5-6-7 houses of 1Millions +, getting way to not pay the government with charity exposure ???

Your owner lose 10M$ , his fortune will got from 500,000,000$ to 490,000,000$ before the profits made this year from his real companies ????

The joke is not the player.

Put the perspective on both side please.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life
Maybe they could play in Europe and make 10-15% of what the NHL pays them. This is why the Union will crumble. In 2005, when the next season starts, I can guarantee, you will see dozens of players break from the union, and side with the owners.

you live in a dream world.

Chelios 09-11-2004 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian Fan
You blame the players having ferraris but it's ok for an owner to have 4-5-6-7 houses of 1Millions +, getting way to not pay the government with charity exposure ???

Your owner lose 10M$ , his fortune will got from 500,000,000$ to 490,000,000$ before the profits made this year from his real companies ????

Absolutely brutal argument. These guys are millionaires for a reason: they don`t put money in bad investments. Right now an NHL team is a horrible investment.

habitual_hab 09-11-2004 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chelios
Absolutely brutal argument. These guys are millionaires for a reason: they don`t put money in bad investments. Right now an NHL team is a horrible investment.

and the owners only have themselves to blame for the state the NHL is in.

Sanderson 09-11-2004 10:01 AM

Nope, the "free market" which is no free market is to blame...

thinkwild 09-11-2004 01:00 PM

The overall player salary marketplace, is not the problem, it is the decisions owners have been making in the boardrooms that are the major problem.

Even if you have a hard cap, there will be a marketplace for salaries. THe same owners who currently must be saved from themselves will be negotiating them.

Whats great about the current CBA isnt that it is a free market, it is that it is an outstandingly wise marketplace that has been created. It is very difficult to come up with a fair system that overall exists in a market. THis CBA balances those two needs absoltely beautifully.

If the current equilibrium became out of whack, reset it with a one time 20% cut, and continue with the market at the right value.

The market for UFAs is a free market. The market for non-UFAs is not a free market. It is a highly regulated market, starting with a draft and a rookie cap, and escalations based on the starting value, not the market value. All RFAs are underpaid relative to the their worth on the open market.

Russian Fan 09-11-2004 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chelios
Absolutely brutal argument. These guys are millionaires for a reason: they don`t put money in bad investments. Right now an NHL team is a horrible investment.

If (I said IF) owning an NHL franchise is a bad investment then it's more because the ones who works in the existing NHL franchises are not doing their job. If Minnesota an expansion team can do it, everyone can do it as long as you hired competent people around it.

Right now most people on these board are saying teams are losing money because of players & they expect team to make money with regarding if the DECISION MAKERS are making good decisions.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.