Did the NHLPA drop the ball?
View Single Post
09-11-2004, 06:08 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Originally Posted by
If the players initially offered a roll back of 5% in salaries across the board they would more than likely roll back upwards of 10%, in all probability more than that.
I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts and start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want. Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?
Bottom line is that the offer was a good offer if you are looking to negotiate in good faith, it's only a joke offer if you are looking to force an agreement on the players.
I could not disagree with this post more.
1. the 5% roll back was a one time roll back that would have been swallowed up immediately by the automatic salary increases that are part of the current cba. If arbitration and the automatic 10% increase for players under the league average are not removed(and they are not part of this offer), that 5% roll back is back in the players pocket by the next season.
2. when you say, "I don't understand why we have to take responsibility out of the owners hads for agreeing to some of these outrageous contracts". Lets keep in mind that by and large "the owners" are 3 to 5 owners that can afford to spend the rest of the teams under the table and another 3 to 5 owners willing to take a loss to try and compete on the ice to keep his franchise value and place in the local sports market high. the rest of the owners are along for the ride. the higher salaries go the less they can afford. As this current cba has evolved the top teams aquired a constantly increasing percentage of the marquee players while the bottom teams increasingly became a collection unknown players. Last year's stanley cup finals was a promoters disaster, Inginla and 20 no names verses, St Louis & Lecavalier and 18 no names.
3. "start blaming the current situation on the players for asking for as much as they want". Nobody is saying that. However, what they are saying is that the owners should be allowed to say that they have been paying too much and need to cut back. the players are saying, "hey!! you can't do that! you offered it and you have to keep paying it with a raise every year"
4. "Isn't it still the owners responsibility to run their business making sound financial decisions?". When you say that do you forget about teams like Boston say they wont pay $8.5m to Bill Guerin and $7m to Jason Allison and then get cut to pieces by their fan base for not being willing to make a commitment to winning?
Are you forgetting about lower revenue teams like Edmonton that regularly trade off their best players as they mature into arbitration eligible players because they can no longer afford the new salaries they would get? For every team like Toronto and Detroit that is loading up with all stars with big contracts at the trade deadline there are two teams that simply have to give up their franchise players for draft picks and prospects because they can't or won't pay the outragious prices.
5.you are in a very distinct minority that believes that offer, which increased the luxury tax threshold from $40m to $50m, was a good offer.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by txpd