HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Exposing the NHLPA Proposal (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=117833)

EricBowser 12-10-2004 02:59 PM

Exposing the NHLPA Proposal
 
Brian Burke is right, by offering a 24% rollback, NHLPA is trying to buy the same system and since he's one of the league's voices, you know the NHL is laughing at this proposal.

Let's try to start with the positives.

NHLPA says 592 players with 90 or more days of service during the 2003-2004 season have contracts signed for the 2004-2005 season. Those deals amount to $1,123,391,657, reduced by the 24% rollback and the league saves $269,613,998. For 2005-2006, 288 players are signed for $660,353,895 so the league would save $158,484,935 and in 06-07, 112 players totalling $336,198,722 with a savings of $80,687,693.

For an immediate impact on the financial landscape of the NHL, this rollback would certainly help bring back the balance of fairness and help begin the creation of a partnership between the league and its players.

In the middle ground of positive changes, NHLPA did move towards the league's concerns for entry-level contracts but if you just read the league's summary, little do you know, it does nothing to reduce the performance bonus. It appears the length will be extended to four years, maximum annual base salary reduced to $850,000 and annual signing bonus maxed at $212,500.

The problem is the performance incentives.

A player could earn $850,000 for "Individual A Bonuses" which have a maximum payable bonus of $212,500 for each category so expect the NHLPA to force players and agents to demand the most attainable statistics and for the maximum. This would be fine but then the union wants to reward players for league wide rankings in those categories and any awards in the section called "Individual B Bonuses". These incentives are unlimited and would continue the Thornton Model in a new style that would be harmful for the NHL. If the NHLPA would agree to an $850,000 cap for type B incentives, a successful entry-level player could receive $2,762,500 annually and $11,050,000 over the four years of his contract.

The next issue to tackle is the qualifying offer detailed by the NHLPA.
- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 100% QO's
- players making less than $660,000 must receive 110% QO's
- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 105% QO's

NHL has stated the current 110% rewards players who have declined in skills or don't deserve the same prior salary to continue making money beyond their performance capability. It is almost certain the NHL will come back with a vastly different multiplier around 80% for all players since all player salary levels have history a of under-performing.

All the talk about changing the arbitration system to allow the team some fairness was nothing but window-dressing by the union.

If a team believes a player making $1.5 million or more has a lower market value, the team does not have to make a qualifying offer, must announce the election by June 30, player selects the term (one or two year deal), player can only be subjected to a club-elected arbitration once in his career, and a team can not select more than one per year or twice in any consecutive three-year period.

Now for high-level players, teams don't want to lose and have for the start of the season, teams must make the required QO and announce that it is reserving the right to elect arbitration. If the players declines to sign the QO or file arbitration, then the team has 48-hours to select the arbitration. The team must offer his prior salary and player selects the term.

This doesn't allow for a team to keep a quality but declining player because the QO and arbitration offer will be 100% of his prior salary so very few teams if any will use this tool. As for the players in the first method, since they only have to be subjected to the process once, they will only select a 1-year deal and then hope for the best that season giving them all the leverage again. This will force teams to be very careful on the player they select for arbitration.

On the next issue of revenue-sharing, NHLPA wants $189 million or more in the system but for whatever crazy reason, NHL owners and Bettman are refusing to have meaningful revenue-sharing, something that will become a hot topic of fans against the league for many of the lower revenue teams.

Before the nuclear issue, NHLPA did a great job to try and hide some very significant changes to the expired CBA at the end of their proposal.

- eliminate Group IV free agents but adjust draft choice compensation procedures and levels
- change no-trade provisions and increase the minimum salary to $250,000
- adjustments to the waivers system
- reduce length of training camp and exhibition games
- to discuss number of regular season NHL games, lenght of season, and playoff seeding
- increase the per diem
- increase number of tickets available to NHLPA for purchase and clarify seating location
- increase pension plan
- eliminate Exhibit 3 - the entry draft opt-in form
- change Exhibit 4 - lottery system and draft
- eliminate Exhibit 15 - compensatory draft system
- eliminate Exhibit 16 - transition rules
- eliminate Exhibit 17 - pro rata adjustments


Finally, the luxury tax system.

Gary Bettman has been very clear about his dislike and unwillingness to accept any form of a luxury tax system, so it is no surprise the NHLPA offered a weak and unsubstantial luxury tax system.

Here's the breakdown...

$45,000,000 to $49,999,999 receives 20% tax for 1st year, 25% for 2nd consecutive year, and 30% for 3rd consecutive year
$50,000,000 to $59,999,999 receives 50% tax for 1st year, 55% for 2nd consecutive year, and 60% for 3rd consecutive year
$60,000,000 and beyond receives 60% tax for 1st year, 65% for 2nd consecutive year, and 70% for 3rd consecutive year

This means only three teams would pay a tax on the currently signed contracts after the 24% rollack and generate $1.6 million for revenue-sharing among the low-revenue clubs. New Jersey would pay $264k, Philadelphia $1.023 million, and Toronto $321k.

Next week, Bettman will provide the players a counter-proposal and then the union will lash back with threats of ending the season on their own and filing an unfair labor practice claim against the NHL before the league even has a chance to declare an impasse.

chiavsfan 12-10-2004 03:07 PM

Quote:

Next week, Bettman will provide the players a counter-proposal and then the union will lash back with threats of ending the season on their own and filing an unfair labor practice claim against the NHL before the league even has a chance to declare an impasse.
I think in the end though, the league has smarter people on their side, and would be better off in a legal case...just my opinion, disagree if you will

Mess 12-10-2004 03:10 PM

A better solution to get the Owners knocked off the Hard Cap would be a big rollback as the NHLPA just offered . combined with small salary % increase Cap per year based on the lower contact amount... Lets say 2 % per year for example on new contracts for ease of math..

Lets take Pronger for example:

Current Salary $10 Million

Apply the rollback (25 %)

New Salary $7.5 Million

Apply the 2% maximum increase allowed in salary based on new base (7.5 mil) in any current year

So after 5 years the most Pronger would be able to earn ( 2% x 5 years = 10%) ....7.5 Million + 10 % ($750,000)

New Salary max $ 8.25 Million after 5 years

(which could be the length of this new CBA agreement rather than the proposed 6 years)

So Pronger will make from 7.5 mil to 8.25 mil in the next 5 years ..now cap rookie entry level contracts as well as discussed..

HOW MUCH MORE COST CERTAINTY would owners need to tie Player Salaries to Revenue .. ???

They will know today what any given player could make for the next five years and plan accordingly on spending..

Look I can do it without a Hard Cap or Luxury Tax required .. because I don't really believe in either .. and the MAX a player can earn, will eliminate bidding wars and escalating Salaries in the future, and for the same money offered by multiple teams the player as a UFA could chose where (lifestyle) he wanted to play, and the richer teams are not punished by any CAP TYPE or penalty for running a better business, and it totally controls GM's and owners over spending habits.

The NHL better get me in there to the negotiating table so all those Knuckleheads on both sides can give the fans hockey again ...

Dr Love 12-10-2004 03:12 PM

Quote:

NHLPA says 592 players with 90 or more days of service during the 2003-2004 season have contracts signed for the 2004-2005 season. Those deals amount to $1,123,391,657, reduced by the 24% rollback and the league saves $269,613,998. For 2005-2006, 288 players are signed for $660,353,895 so the league would save $158,484,935 and in 06-07, 112 players totalling $336,198,722 with a savings of $80,687,693.
The problem with the 24% rollback--or any roll back--is that it doesn't apply to free agents. So the savings aren't truly what those numbers indicate. It'll lower the middle level FAs, since the league average will be lower--but that's not the problem. The problem is the big contracts, and this roll back will not do much of anything in the big contracts.

SENSible1* 12-11-2004 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricBowser
Brian Burke is right, by offering a 24% rollback, NHLPA is trying to buy the same system and since he's one of the league's voices, you know the NHL is laughing at this proposal.

Let's try to start with the positives.

NHLPA says 592 players with 90 or more days of service during the 2003-2004 season have contracts signed for the 2004-2005 season. Those deals amount to $1,123,391,657, reduced by the 24% rollback and the league saves $269,613,998. For 2005-2006, 288 players are signed for $660,353,895 so the league would save $158,484,935 and in 06-07, 112 players totalling $336,198,722 with a savings of $80,687,693.

For an immediate impact on the financial landscape of the NHL, this rollback would certainly help bring back the balance of fairness and help begin the creation of a partnership between the league and its players.

In the middle ground of positive changes, NHLPA did move towards the league's concerns for entry-level contracts but if you just read the league's summary, little do you know, it does nothing to reduce the performance bonus. It appears the length will be extended to four years, maximum annual base salary reduced to $850,000 and annual signing bonus maxed at $212,500.

The problem is the performance incentives.

A player could earn $850,000 for "Individual A Bonuses" which have a maximum payable bonus of $212,500 for each category so expect the NHLPA to force players and agents to demand the most attainable statistics and for the maximum. This would be fine but then the union wants to reward players for league wide rankings in those categories and any awards in the section called "Individual B Bonuses". These incentives are unlimited and would continue the Thornton Model in a new style that would be harmful for the NHL. If the NHLPA would agree to an $850,000 cap for type B incentives, a successful entry-level player could receive $2,762,500 annually and $11,050,000 over the four years of his contract.

The next issue to tackle is the qualifying offer detailed by the NHLPA.
- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 100% QO's
- players making less than $660,000 must receive 110% QO's
- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 105% QO's

NHL has stated the current 110% rewards players who have declined in skills or don't deserve the same prior salary to continue making money beyond their performance capability. It is almost certain the NHL will come back with a vastly different multiplier around 80% for all players since all player salary levels have history a of under-performing.

All the talk about changing the arbitration system to allow the team some fairness was nothing but window-dressing by the union.

If a team believes a player making $1.5 million or more has a lower market value, the team does not have to make a qualifying offer, must announce the election by June 30, player selects the term (one or two year deal), player can only be subjected to a club-elected arbitration once in his career, and a team can not select more than one per year or twice in any consecutive three-year period.

Now for high-level players, teams don't want to lose and have for the start of the season, teams must make the required QO and announce that it is reserving the right to elect arbitration. If the players declines to sign the QO or file arbitration, then the team has 48-hours to select the arbitration. The team must offer his prior salary and player selects the term.

This doesn't allow for a team to keep a quality but declining player because the QO and arbitration offer will be 100% of his prior salary so very few teams if any will use this tool. As for the players in the first method, since they only have to be subjected to the process once, they will only select a 1-year deal and then hope for the best that season giving them all the leverage again. This will force teams to be very careful on the player they select for arbitration.

On the next issue of revenue-sharing, NHLPA wants $189 million or more in the system but for whatever crazy reason, NHL owners and Bettman are refusing to have meaningful revenue-sharing, something that will become a hot topic of fans against the league for many of the lower revenue teams.

Before the nuclear issue, NHLPA did a great job to try and hide some very significant changes to the expired CBA at the end of their proposal.

- eliminate Group IV free agents but adjust draft choice compensation procedures and levels
- change no-trade provisions and increase the minimum salary to $250,000
- adjustments to the waivers system
- reduce length of training camp and exhibition games
- to discuss number of regular season NHL games, lenght of season, and playoff seeding
- increase the per diem
- increase number of tickets available to NHLPA for purchase and clarify seating location
- increase pension plan
- eliminate Exhibit 3 - the entry draft opt-in form
- change Exhibit 4 - lottery system and draft
- eliminate Exhibit 15 - compensatory draft system
- eliminate Exhibit 16 - transition rules
- eliminate Exhibit 17 - pro rata adjustments


Finally, the luxury tax system.

Gary Bettman has been very clear about his dislike and unwillingness to accept any form of a luxury tax system, so it is no surprise the NHLPA offered a weak and unsubstantial luxury tax system.

Here's the breakdown...

$45,000,000 to $49,999,999 receives 20% tax for 1st year, 25% for 2nd consecutive year, and 30% for 3rd consecutive year
$50,000,000 to $59,999,999 receives 50% tax for 1st year, 55% for 2nd consecutive year, and 60% for 3rd consecutive year
$60,000,000 and beyond receives 60% tax for 1st year, 65% for 2nd consecutive year, and 70% for 3rd consecutive year

This means only three teams would pay a tax on the currently signed contracts after the 24% rollack and generate $1.6 million for revenue-sharing among the low-revenue clubs. New Jersey would pay $264k, Philadelphia $1.023 million, and Toronto $321k.

Next week, Bettman will provide the players a counter-proposal and then the union will lash back with threats of ending the season on their own and filing an unfair labor practice claim against the NHL before the league even has a chance to declare an impasse.


Thanks for the breakdown. Very informative.

Kodiak 12-11-2004 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricBowser
The problem is the performance incentives.

A player could earn $850,000 for "Individual A Bonuses" which have a maximum payable bonus of $212,500 for each category so expect the NHLPA to force players and agents to demand the most attainable statistics and for the maximum. This would be fine but then the union wants to reward players for league wide rankings in those categories and any awards in the section called "Individual B Bonuses". These incentives are unlimited and would continue the Thornton Model in a new style that would be harmful for the NHL. If the NHLPA would agree to an $850,000 cap for type B incentives, a successful entry-level player could receive $2,762,500 annually and $11,050,000 over the four years of his contract.

Look at pages 93 and 94 of the proposal. It sets out clearly what type B incentives are. A player can't cash in under type B incentives unless he voted in the top 10 for most trophies (top 5 for Selke, Lady Byng and Calder--and the Calder incentive is capped at $212,500) or in the top 15 in goals, assists, points, points/game, +/-, game winners, hits, or blocked shots. Those are the uncapped incentives because if a player hits those levels, he deserves to be paid. Ilya Kovalchuk was tied for first in goals and second in points this year, and he was on the last year of his rookie contract. Doesn't he deserved to get paid well for playing at that level?

Quote:

The next issue to tackle is the qualifying offer detailed by the NHLPA.
- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 100% QO's
- players making less than $660,000 must receive 110% QO's
- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 105% QO's

NHL has stated the current 110% rewards players who have declined in skills or don't deserve the same prior salary to continue making money beyond their performance capability. It is almost certain the NHL will come back with a vastly different multiplier around 80% for all players since all player salary levels have history a of under-performing.
The NHL's problem with the 110% qualifier was that it grew to apply to so many players. With the league average at $1.8 mil, a team would have to qualify a player making $1.5 mil at 110%, and that adds up quickly for small market teams. But how many players make less than $660k? And at less than $660k, a 110% qualifier is not much. It would take a player from $660k to $726k. It's not the small change players that teams care about cutting the salaries on. It's the players making a hefty amount that just aren't playing up to par.

Quote:

All the talk about changing the arbitration system to allow the team some fairness was nothing but window-dressing by the union.

If a team believes a player making $1.5 million or more has a lower market value, the team does not have to make a qualifying offer, must announce the election by June 30, player selects the term (one or two year deal), player can only be subjected to a club-elected arbitration once in his career, and a team can not select more than one per year or twice in any consecutive three-year period.

Now for high-level players, teams don't want to lose and have for the start of the season, teams must make the required QO and announce that it is reserving the right to elect arbitration. If the players declines to sign the QO or file arbitration, then the team has 48-hours to select the arbitration. The team must offer his prior salary and player selects the term.

This doesn't allow for a team to keep a quality but declining player because the QO and arbitration offer will be 100% of his prior salary so very few teams if any will use this tool. As for the players in the first method, since they only have to be subjected to the process once, they will only select a 1-year deal and then hope for the best that season giving them all the leverage again. This will force teams to be very careful on the player they select for arbitration.
You're treating the two issues like they're mutually exclusive. If a team wants to keep the "quality but declining player" then they announce that they are taking him to arbitration for less by June 30. The second tool is not a salary controlling device. It is designed to end lengthy holdouts by core players.

As for arbitration for less, I think it's substantial. Using your example (though I doubt a team would use it on a player making $1.5 mil), if the arbitrator decides that he's worth $1.1 mil, then that's what he gets for his deal. When his deal is up, then his qualifier is $1.1 mil and he has to work from there. Clubs really shouldn't need the opportunity to exercise this more than once on a player, because if they took the $1.5 mil player to arbitration because he's making too much, get $1.1 mil, then give $1.5 mil again once his deal is up, then the team has no one to blame but themselves.

Quote:

On the next issue of revenue-sharing, NHLPA wants $189 million or more in the system but for whatever crazy reason, NHL owners and Bettman are refusing to have meaningful revenue-sharing, something that will become a hot topic of fans against the league for many of the lower revenue teams.

Before the nuclear issue, NHLPA did a great job to try and hide some very significant changes to the expired CBA at the end of their proposal.

- eliminate Group IV free agents but adjust draft choice compensation procedures and levels
- change no-trade provisions and increase the minimum salary to $250,000
- adjustments to the waivers system
- reduce length of training camp and exhibition games
- to discuss number of regular season NHL games, lenght of season, and playoff seeding
- increase the per diem
- increase number of tickets available to NHLPA for purchase and clarify seating location
- increase pension plan
- eliminate Exhibit 3 - the entry draft opt-in form
- change Exhibit 4 - lottery system and draft
- eliminate Exhibit 15 - compensatory draft system
- eliminate Exhibit 16 - transition rules
- eliminate Exhibit 17 - pro rata adjustments
The NHLPA did not try to "hide" anything. They knew that the owners were going over the proposal with a fine-toothed comb. The fact is that these provisions are small potatoes, and it would be pointless to make an issue out of these until the new financial system is agreed upon or almost agreed upon. You need to solve the big issue before you can worry about all the little details.

Quote:

Finally, the luxury tax system.

Gary Bettman has been very clear about his dislike and unwillingness to accept any form of a luxury tax system, so it is no surprise the NHLPA offered a weak and unsubstantial luxury tax system.

Here's the breakdown...

$45,000,000 to $49,999,999 receives 20% tax for 1st year, 25% for 2nd consecutive year, and 30% for 3rd consecutive year
$50,000,000 to $59,999,999 receives 50% tax for 1st year, 55% for 2nd consecutive year, and 60% for 3rd consecutive year
$60,000,000 and beyond receives 60% tax for 1st year, 65% for 2nd consecutive year, and 70% for 3rd consecutive year

This means only three teams would pay a tax on the currently signed contracts after the 24% rollack and generate $1.6 million for revenue-sharing among the low-revenue clubs. New Jersey would pay $264k, Philadelphia $1.023 million, and Toronto $321k.
This means that only three teams BASED ON CURRENTLY HELD CONTRACTS would be over the tax threshold. Remember that many teams only have half their roster (if that) under contract. It would be difficult to project full payrolls because many teams are in transition right now and new contracts would be based on the new market value set by the rollback. Besides that, the luxury tax is NOT the only means of revenue sharing. Please read Section 4 of the NHLPA's proposal. It details how the top 10 teams in terms of revenue would share with the rest of the teams that sell 80%+ of their seats.

I'm not saying that the NHLPA made a great proposal, but you have misrepresented the entire thing. I think you need to sit and read the entire proposal more carefully if you don't think that there are many significant concessions.

chriss_co 12-11-2004 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricBowser
Brian Burke is right, by offering a 24% rollback, NHLPA is trying to buy the same system and since he's one of the league's voices, you know the NHL is laughing at this proposal.

Let's try to start with the positives.

NHLPA says 592 players with 90 or more days of service during the 2003-2004 season have contracts signed for the 2004-2005 season. Those deals amount to $1,123,391,657, reduced by the 24% rollback and the league saves $269,613,998. For 2005-2006, 288 players are signed for $660,353,895 so the league would save $158,484,935 and in 06-07, 112 players totalling $336,198,722 with a savings of $80,687,693.

For an immediate impact on the financial landscape of the NHL, this rollback would certainly help bring back the balance of fairness and help begin the creation of a partnership between the league and its players.

In the middle ground of positive changes, NHLPA did move towards the league's concerns for entry-level contracts but if you just read the league's summary, little do you know, it does nothing to reduce the performance bonus. It appears the length will be extended to four years, maximum annual base salary reduced to $850,000 and annual signing bonus maxed at $212,500.

The problem is the performance incentives.

A player could earn $850,000 for "Individual A Bonuses" which have a maximum payable bonus of $212,500 for each category so expect the NHLPA to force players and agents to demand the most attainable statistics and for the maximum. This would be fine but then the union wants to reward players for league wide rankings in those categories and any awards in the section called "Individual B Bonuses". These incentives are unlimited and would continue the Thornton Model in a new style that would be harmful for the NHL. If the NHLPA would agree to an $850,000 cap for type B incentives, a successful entry-level player could receive $2,762,500 annually and $11,050,000 over the four years of his contract.

The next issue to tackle is the qualifying offer detailed by the NHLPA.
- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 100% QO's
- players making less than $660,000 must receive 110% QO's
- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 105% QO's

NHL has stated the current 110% rewards players who have declined in skills or don't deserve the same prior salary to continue making money beyond their performance capability. It is almost certain the NHL will come back with a vastly different multiplier around 80% for all players since all player salary levels have history a of under-performing.

All the talk about changing the arbitration system to allow the team some fairness was nothing but window-dressing by the union.

If a team believes a player making $1.5 million or more has a lower market value, the team does not have to make a qualifying offer, must announce the election by June 30, player selects the term (one or two year deal), player can only be subjected to a club-elected arbitration once in his career, and a team can not select more than one per year or twice in any consecutive three-year period.

Now for high-level players, teams don't want to lose and have for the start of the season, teams must make the required QO and announce that it is reserving the right to elect arbitration. If the players declines to sign the QO or file arbitration, then the team has 48-hours to select the arbitration. The team must offer his prior salary and player selects the term.

This doesn't allow for a team to keep a quality but declining player because the QO and arbitration offer will be 100% of his prior salary so very few teams if any will use this tool. As for the players in the first method, since they only have to be subjected to the process once, they will only select a 1-year deal and then hope for the best that season giving them all the leverage again. This will force teams to be very careful on the player they select for arbitration.

On the next issue of revenue-sharing, NHLPA wants $189 million or more in the system but for whatever crazy reason, NHL owners and Bettman are refusing to have meaningful revenue-sharing, something that will become a hot topic of fans against the league for many of the lower revenue teams.

Before the nuclear issue, NHLPA did a great job to try and hide some very significant changes to the expired CBA at the end of their proposal.

- eliminate Group IV free agents but adjust draft choice compensation procedures and levels
- change no-trade provisions and increase the minimum salary to $250,000
- adjustments to the waivers system
- reduce length of training camp and exhibition games
- to discuss number of regular season NHL games, lenght of season, and playoff seeding
- increase the per diem
- increase number of tickets available to NHLPA for purchase and clarify seating location
- increase pension plan
- eliminate Exhibit 3 - the entry draft opt-in form
- change Exhibit 4 - lottery system and draft
- eliminate Exhibit 15 - compensatory draft system
- eliminate Exhibit 16 - transition rules
- eliminate Exhibit 17 - pro rata adjustments


Finally, the luxury tax system.

Gary Bettman has been very clear about his dislike and unwillingness to accept any form of a luxury tax system, so it is no surprise the NHLPA offered a weak and unsubstantial luxury tax system.

Here's the breakdown...

$45,000,000 to $49,999,999 receives 20% tax for 1st year, 25% for 2nd consecutive year, and 30% for 3rd consecutive year
$50,000,000 to $59,999,999 receives 50% tax for 1st year, 55% for 2nd consecutive year, and 60% for 3rd consecutive year
$60,000,000 and beyond receives 60% tax for 1st year, 65% for 2nd consecutive year, and 70% for 3rd consecutive year

This means only three teams would pay a tax on the currently signed contracts after the 24% rollack and generate $1.6 million for revenue-sharing among the low-revenue clubs. New Jersey would pay $264k, Philadelphia $1.023 million, and Toronto $321k.

Next week, Bettman will provide the players a counter-proposal and then the union will lash back with threats of ending the season on their own and filing an unfair labor practice claim against the NHL before the league even has a chance to declare an impasse.

Excellent post

John Flyers Fan 12-11-2004 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Love
The problem with the 24% rollback--or any roll back--is that it doesn't apply to free agents. So the savings aren't truly what those numbers indicate. It'll lower the middle level FAs, since the league average will be lower--but that's not the problem. The problem is the big contracts, and this roll back will not do much of anything in the big contracts.

Big contracts, such as LeClair giving back $6.5 million or Yashin giving back $16 million.

If the owners decide to go out and offer the Demitra's & Palfy's of the world $9 million per year, afer the top salaries just got reduced to the $6-7 million range, than they get what they deserve.

MS 12-11-2004 01:47 PM

People act like the players are showing their entire hand with this proposal, when of course there will still be lots of room to move.

The significant move here was the admission that the game was in trouble and the 24% rollback. The NHL will probably respond accordingly and make a concession of their own - abandon the cap but counter-propose a very, very stiff luxury tax. Once this happens, the two sides are at least negotiating on the same playing field (that the game is in trouble and a luxury tax is a reasonable way to address things), and a settlement is possible. Previously the players were unreasonably claiming that the game wasn't in financial trouble, and the owners were unreasonably claiming that a cap was the only way to fix it.

On issues like arbitration, rookie bonuses, and the like, the NHLPA isn't going to give away their entire hand now. The NHL is going to ask for enormous concessions on these fronts, so they're starting with some limited concessions and expecting to settle in the middle. It's how a negotiation works, but for some reason people love to act like this is a final proposal and interpret the effect it would have on the game, which is a completely useless process.

BLONG7 12-11-2004 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Big contracts, such as LeClair giving back $6.5 million or Yashin giving back $16 million.

If the owners decide to go out and offer the Demitra's & Palfy's of the world $9 million per year, afer the top salaries just got reduced to the $6-7 million range, than they get what they deserve.

Bang on here!!! The problem is that there will always be a Bob Clarke,Ken Holland, Fergie Jr. etc... the big markets will still spend spend spend...But hopefully if nothing else is learned from all this CBA BS is that these GM's need to use their heads when signing guys to new contracts and create a new market for top end players...

Sanderson 12-11-2004 02:01 PM

They always did that, it's just that they have more money than other GMs.

jcpenny 12-11-2004 02:07 PM

The 24% rollback is there to say to the owners: "Guys you messed up so we give you a chance to redeem yourselves by resetting our salaries" But we know damn well that its IMPOSIBLE for the owners to be responsible. The salaries will always go up as long as there will be free agency.

Thats what we call economy. And like i said before, the owners dont work togheter, they think about their buisiness first. The cap or stiff tax is to protect the owners from the richer ones and not to protect themselves from players. The players try to act like they dont know that and they prefer to blame the owners. IF I'm bright enough to see through that i'm sure the owners can too. Its a scapegoat for avoiding a cap or stiff luxury tax.

The lock out is not even about the players its about the owners. The only way to get through that is with either a cap or stiff tax.

FlyersFan10* 12-11-2004 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLONG7
Bang on here!!! The problem is that there will always be a Bob Clarke,Ken Holland, Fergie Jr. etc... the big markets will still spend spend spend...But hopefully if nothing else is learned from all this CBA BS is that these GM's need to use their heads when signing guys to new contracts and create a new market for top end players...

Ok, before you bash Clarke or anything like that, let's talk about John Leclair for a moment. For years on end, while he was scoring 50+ goals a season, he was VASTLY underpaid. Part of the contract Leclair got was a loyalty contract that John definitely deserved. I could care less what other Philadelphia fans may think, but John was underpaid for years and didn't say two words about it. Second, after Lindros quit on the team, the Flyers knew they needed to retain Leclair in order to attract other free agents. If Leclair walked, then free agents would view Philadelphia as a problematic organization. So, yes, Clarke did overpay for Leclair. However, his overpayment for Leclair helped us land Roenick to replace Lindros.

For the most part, the Flyers have been one of the better franchises when it comes to managing money. Simply put, they don't spend money they don't have.

With regards to a salary cap, I have a major problem with that because any additional revenue the Flyers will generate will end up being used to prop up a franchise like Atlanta or Nashville. That's the biggest problem I have with the salary cap. Teams who are great at generating their own revenue have to pay for others who aren't. Where's the fairness in that? Truth of the matter is that there isn't. Bettman and the owners got greedy. Plain and simple. They tried expanding into non-traditional hockey markets but didn't bother trying to improve the on ice product or ensuring that these markets would be viable.

jcpenny 12-11-2004 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLONG7
Bang on here!!! The problem is that there will always be a Bob Clarke,Ken Holland, Fergie Jr. etc... the big markets will still spend spend spend...But hopefully if nothing else is learned from all this CBA BS is that these GM's need to use their heads when signing guys to new contracts and create a new market for top end players...

Why should they care about the other teams when they have the money? Since when a company think of the other ones when they sign players? When they sign guys like Lang, Roenick, Leclair and Nolan they dont care about the economy of the game cuz it doesnt affect them and the only way to control that is with a either a STIFF tax or cap (i dont like the cap)

myrocketsgotcracked 12-11-2004 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
A better solution to get the Owners knocked off the Hard Cap would be a big rollback as the NHLPA just offered . combined with small salary % increase Cap per year based on the lower contact amount... Lets say 2 % per year for example on new contracts for ease of math..

Lets take Pronger for example:

Current Salary $10 Million

Apply the rollback (25 %)

New Salary $7.5 Million

Apply the 2% maximum increase allowed in salary based on new base (7.5 mil) in any current year

So after 5 years the most Pronger would be able to earn ( 2% x 5 years = 10%) ....7.5 Million + 10 % ($750,000)

New Salary max $ 8.25 Million after 5 years

(which could be the length of this new CBA agreement rather than the proposed 6 years)

So Pronger will make from 7.5 mil to 8.25 mil in the next 5 years ..now cap rookie entry level contracts as well as discussed..

HOW MUCH MORE COST CERTAINTY would owners need to tie Player Salaries to Revenue .. ???

They will know today what any given player could make for the next five years and plan accordingly on spending..

Look I can do it without a Hard Cap or Luxury Tax required .. because I don't really believe in either .. and the MAX a player can earn, will eliminate bidding wars and escalating Salaries in the future, and for the same money offered by multiple teams the player as a UFA could chose where (lifestyle) he wanted to play, and the richer teams are not punished by any CAP TYPE or penalty for running a better business, and it totally controls GM's and owners over spending habits.

The NHL better get me in there to the negotiating table so all those Knuckleheads on both sides can give the fans hockey again ...

i thought the nhlpa said they will not accept anything with a cap. and it kind of ignored the "free market" stuff that the nhlpa wants too, by placing a cap on how much a player can earn on his next contract. sure your proposal sounds good (as long as the cap in % increase is low) but i doubt the nhlpa will accept anything like that.

Isles72 12-11-2004 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Big contracts, such as LeClair giving back $6.5 million or Yashin giving back $16 million.

If the owners decide to go out and offer the Demitra's & Palfy's of the world $9 million per year, afer the top salaries just got reduced to the $6-7 million range, than they get what they deserve.

thats the problem
all it will take is one gm to spend like a fool for Demitra/Palffy and the whole cycle starts all over .

John Flyers Fan 12-11-2004 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isles72
thats the problem
all it will take is one gm to spend like a fool for Demitra/Palffy and the whole cycle starts all over .

#1. One GM can't mess averything up.
#2. Contracts that UFA's sign can't be used as comparables in arbitration cases.
#3. Owners and GM's have to actually use the tools that the CBA has in place to keep the salaries in line with budgets.

SENSible1* 12-11-2004 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
#1. One GM can't mess averything up.
#2. Contracts that UFA's sign can't be used as comparables in arbitration cases.
#3. Owners and GM's have to actually use the tools that the CBA has in place to keep the salaries in line with budgets.

The problem isn't the budgets, the problem is that one teams budget is 30M and others are at 100M.

Big market fans like to ignore this as they'd prefer to keep their spending advantage. "Budgets" are not the answer, stop pretending they are.

porknbeans 12-11-2004 05:47 PM

.
 
Spending difference is not an issue. Stop trying to argue it is.

God, you really dont understand much do you?

John Flyers Fan 12-11-2004 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The problem isn't the budgets, the problem is that one teams budget is 30M and others are at 100M.

Big market fans like to ignore this as they'd prefer to keep their spending advantage. "Budgets" are not the answer, stop pretending they are.

That hasn't been the argument. The NHL hasn't been arguing for "competitive balance" .... they're asking for a hard salary cap, with very very limited revenue sharing.

SENSible1* 12-11-2004 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That hasn't been the argument. The NHL hasn't been arguing for "competitive balance" .... they're asking for a hard salary cap, with very very limited revenue sharing.

The hard cap establishes equal player personel budgets for all teams. Obviously spending advantage is an issue for the NHL.

John Flyers Fan 12-11-2004 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The hard cap establishes equal player personel budgets for all teams. Obviously spending advantage is an issue for the NHL.

However is the hard cap is set at $40 million, with a minimum of $30 million how does that help teams like Nashville that is currently losing money with a payroll of less than $30 million ???

SENSible1* 12-11-2004 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
However is the hard cap is set at $40 million, with a minimum of $30 million how does that help teams like Nashville that is currently losing money with a payroll of less than $30 million ???

Are you serious?

Leveling the playing field and permanantly deflating salaries gives them a chance to be profitable as they develp their market.

Which system puts Nashville in a better long-term position, the cap system you just suggested or the PA's last proposal?

porknbeans 12-11-2004 06:02 PM

Holy crap, I can't believe someone is so willing to brownnose the owners as you are Thunderstruck.

You think the players will accept a cap.
You think the NLRB would grant the owners an impasse.
You think a cap is good for the sport
You think this lockout is to save the small markets.
You think the owners shoudl be guaranteed a profit

How can you be wrong on every issue? Wow.

John Flyers Fan 12-11-2004 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Are you serious?

Leveling the playing field and permanantly deflating salaries gives them a chance to be profitable as they develp their market.

Which system puts Nashville in a better long-term position, the cap system you just suggested or the PA's last proposal?

I'd say that Nashville would be better off with hockey begining again in January, with something similar to the NHLPA proposal, with an adjustment for a stiffer luxury tax, than to waiting until 2006 to get a $40 million hard salary cap.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 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.