HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   The New CBA - What's The Middle Ground? (Somewhat Lengthy) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=102757)

nikeisevil 09-10-2004 02:38 PM

The New CBA - What's The Middle Ground? (Somewhat Lengthy)
 
The NHL offered six concepts (from: Here ):

1) A $31 Million Salary Cap

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.

The NHLPA offered (from Here ):

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

"The proposed framework represents significant concessions on the Players’ part. First, even in an already declining marketplace for player contracts, the Players chose to maintain an immediate five percent wage rollback on all existing contracts, generating over $100 million in savings.

"Second, the Players advanced changes to the Entry Level System that would add an estimated $2 million in savings per team for an annual total of $60 million.

"Third, the Players proposed a luxury tax on team payrolls exceeding a negotiated level that would restrain club spending on player payrolls and raise an estimated $30-$35 million annually for redistribution to teams that need money.

"Finally, the Players advised the owners that they are prepared to modify their prior revenue-sharing proposal to distribute revenues from high-revenue clubs to lower revenue clubs in the smaller amounts previously suggested by the league. Under this plan, low-revenue clubs would receive $80 million to $100 million."

According to TSN through here the rollback and luxury tax amounted to this:

"According to sources familiar with the NHLPA's latest offer, the proposal calls for a luxury tax to begin at $50 million US. The players' offer 15 months ago reportedly proposed a payroll tax of $40 million US.

"A five per cent rollback on all existing player contracts"

According to the same article Trevor Linden said this:

"We are making a serious, concerted effort to bridge the gap. But they have a one-track mind: a cap. We're trying to find the middle ground. We understand there are issues out there and we're trying to address them."

So... what is the middle ground? Anyone have any ideas? Here's mine:

-The players agree to a one-time 5% rollback in salaries

-The owners agree to a luxury tax system - but far tougher than the criteria the nhlpa put forth. Rather than $50 Million, why not $31 Million? That number can be modified should revenues increase on a yearly basis - and likewise should they decrease.

-A performance based system for both sides that allows for increases if the players yearly numbers are higher than when the previous contract was signed, and decreases should the players numbers be lower than when the previous contract was signed. The numbers would be based on the average points over the duration of the previous contract. Those said increases and decreases could be individually negotiated at contract time with agents and GM's based on the criteria put forth over the new CBA. Once a contract is signed the player would earn the entirety of the contract regardless of how they played.

-The entry level system I am sure they both agree to negotiate fairly

-The revenue sharing system I am sure they both agree to negotiate fairly

BrickRed 09-13-2004 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikeisevil
[U][B]

So... what is the middle ground? Anyone have any ideas? Here's mine:

-The players agree to a one-time 5% rollback in salaries

-The owners agree to a luxury tax system - but far tougher than the criteria the nhlpa put forth. Rather than $50 Million, why not $31 Million? That number can be modified should revenues increase on a yearly basis - and likewise should they decrease.

-A performance based system for both sides that allows for increases if the players yearly numbers are higher than when the previous contract was signed, and decreases should the players numbers be lower than when the previous contract was signed. The numbers would be based on the average points over the duration of the previous contract. Those said increases and decreases could be individually negotiated at contract time with agents and GM's based on the criteria put forth over the new CBA. Once a contract is signed the player would earn the entirety of the contract regardless of how they played.

-The entry level system I am sure they both agree to negotiate fairly

-The revenue sharing system I am sure they both agree to negotiate fairly

A luxury tax will probably be the end result and $31M is a good number. Love the performance based idea. Not sure the owner's will share anything but tv revenue. That's why its important to increase revenues by making the game better and more exciting to new fans.

My humble opinions are in the thread I just posted. Any thoughts?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.

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.