HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

The MOTHER of all CBA SOLUTIONS - thanks to Go Coyotes

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-27-2004, 10:53 PM
  #1
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
The MOTHER of all CBA SOLUTIONS - thanks to Go Coyotes

Not perfect but here is the framework for a compromise that should satisfy owners, players and fans. This proposal will address and elimniate two of Bob's arguements about why he doesn't support a salary cap system;

Bob does not want a salary cap because he says it does not provide for a free market system. He adds that caps result in high player turnover and is not fair to the fans who want to cheer for their favourite players and not see them traded because of cap problems like other leagues OR to his players who might prefer or want to remain with their teams to maybe bring their families up in one stable environment. We all know the NHL is not a free market system already so adapt the following proposal as a framework for discussion and compromise and BOB should be at least somewhat satisfied with this proposal. I see it as a true compromise that should give everyone close to what they want out of a fair working agreement to both sides.

Gary wants cost certainty.

Fans want to keep their favourite players around for more than an NFL year or two.

Salary Cap / Player Development - CAP % Reduction Proposal

Salary Cap of 53% (32 million hard cap) of annual average team Gross Revenue or approximately 1.4 million average salary based on todays figures but is subject to an annual correction or adjustment. GARY'S HAPPY. (add revised arbitration and reduced entry level contracts.

Player Development % discount from cap. i.e. player is drafted by, signed as a free agent or traded to a team.
- Once he has played for the same organization for 3 years only 90% of his salary counts towards the team cap. (the 10% savings can now be used to pay for other players)
- 4 years played with same team 85% counts towards team cap (15% savings towards other players).
- 5 years played with same team 80% counts towards team cap (20% savings towards other players).
- 6 years 5% each year thereafter etc. etc.
FANS and PLAYERS are happy because unlike the NFL there will be a mechanism that allows players and even encourages teams and players to be more loyal to each other. WIN WIN

Yes, teams will end up paying more than 32 million cap but at least it gives a bone to BOB to get back to the table to negotiate a fair settlement and team budgets will be more balanced and kept in check with a properly structured system.

Bob may not be totally happy as it's still a cap but it eliminates two of his excuses for not wanting a hard cap. This system also rewards the teams that manage their assets properly and put more effort into building a team though the draft, quality coaching and patience and may discourage teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and formerly the New York Rangers from attempting to outbid teams ala the New York Yankees and from playing veteran based teams while they leave their prospects in the minors or just develop them for other organizations like they have been doing for years. I see this as the best Salary Cap proposal any league has come up with to date. It's the only cap that takes into cosideration everyone concerned. Thanks Go Coyotes for getting us started in the right direction. Maybe we should mediate!

THOUGHTS?


Last edited by eye: 09-27-2004 at 11:00 PM.
eye is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 12:28 AM
  #2
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,335
vCash: 500
Pretty good proposal. Though, the NHLPA would want a higher cap.

Another benefit would be that players who want out would have alot less options. Teams wouldn't want to take on a big salary which they'd have to pay for in full. That could lead to players signing for less just so if they get unhappy with the team they don't end up on a crappy team with cap room.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 10:46 AM
  #3
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,252
vCash: 500
Who wouldn't love to be a fly on the wall in those discussions, better yet to have any direct interaction in them.

I don't mind your idea because I know it contains more flexability than my original proposal did. I'm not sure how detailed they would want to get in the cap working like this, as it might be just as easy to adjust the total cap for my original proposal if you think it is too conservative or liberal.

As an appendage your your proposal, I like the idea of 100% exemption of players breaking into the league with that team, as well as a long term tenure exemption I call the franchise exemption.

Otherwise, I can't complain because it's just basically a more detailed version of earlier proposals. To think, we might agree on something! Now if only Bob & Gary could.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-28-2004, 04:53 PM
  #4
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
Knob Goodenow and the union are in no way willing to look at anything but status quo or a luxury tax like MLB...Good proposal though, I wish GB and Knob G cared for the game as much as we do...THE FANS!!! Maybe email your proposal to Brian Burke at TSN and maybe he could get it to these two morons...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 07:56 AM
  #5
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,046
vCash: 5792
I'm definetaly liking this proposal...

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:22 AM
  #6
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Knob Goodenow and the union are in no way willing to look at anything but status quo ...
lying doesnt make your case any more believable.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:18 AM
  #7
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lying doesnt make your case any more believable.

dr
You didn't finish my quote...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 10:57 AM
  #8
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
You didn't finish my quote...
i highlited your lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Knob Goodenow and the union are in no way willing to look at anything but status quo ...
for the record, there it is again.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 02:29 PM
  #9
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i highlited your lie.



for the record, there it is again.

dr
Idiots are everywhere you turn... is there an echo in here???

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:37 PM
  #10
sunb
Registered User
 
sunb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yale University
Country: China
Posts: 3,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Idiots are everywhere you turn... is there an echo in here???
Its ok. DementedReality is the poster who said he would rather have 40 players over Markus Naslund so don't worry too much about his diagnosis.

sunb is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 06:56 AM
  #11
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
Just for the record, dr... status quo=open market system(what union wants) or luxury tax(MLB style) what the union is proposing... that's all I said, there is no lie in that, surely you can see that through your union colour glasses.

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:27 AM
  #12
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Just for the record, dr... status quo=open market system(what union wants) or luxury tax(MLB style) what the union is proposing... that's all I said, there is no lie in that, surely you can see that through your union colour glasses.
status quo means no change to the current. clearly the players have offered something different than current, hence its NOT status quo.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:28 AM
  #13
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovanovski = Norris
Its ok. DementedReality is the poster who said he would rather have 40 players over Markus Naslund so don't worry too much about his diagnosis.
so what ? i happen to prefer at least 40 players ovre Markus Naslund.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:29 AM
  #14
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
status quo means no change to the current. clearly the players have offered something different than current, hence its NOT status quo.

dr
You seem like the sort of person who considers his beat up '83 Reliant "modded" because he put racing decals on the door. Hey, that decal is bad-ass after-market, homie! Repzent!

But ok, fine. The NHLPA is not offering the status quo. The NHLPA is offering a proposal that fails to address any of the issues behind the lockout. Better?

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:54 AM
  #15
Habs4Life
Registered User
 
Habs4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Not perfect but here is the framework for a compromise that should satisfy owners, players and fans. This proposal will address and elimniate two of Bob's arguements about why he doesn't support a salary cap system;

Bob does not want a salary cap because he says it does not provide for a free market system. He adds that caps result in high player turnover and is not fair to the fans who want to cheer for their favourite players and not see them traded because of cap problems like other leagues OR to his players who might prefer or want to remain with their teams to maybe bring their families up in one stable environment. We all know the NHL is not a free market system already so adapt the following proposal as a framework for discussion and compromise and BOB should be at least somewhat satisfied with this proposal. I see it as a true compromise that should give everyone close to what they want out of a fair working agreement to both sides.

Gary wants cost certainty.

Fans want to keep their favourite players around for more than an NFL year or two.

Salary Cap / Player Development - CAP % Reduction Proposal

Salary Cap of 53% (32 million hard cap) of annual average team Gross Revenue or approximately 1.4 million average salary based on todays figures but is subject to an annual correction or adjustment. GARY'S HAPPY. (add revised arbitration and reduced entry level contracts.

Player Development % discount from cap. i.e. player is drafted by, signed as a free agent or traded to a team.
- Once he has played for the same organization for 3 years only 90% of his salary counts towards the team cap. (the 10% savings can now be used to pay for other players)
- 4 years played with same team 85% counts towards team cap (15% savings towards other players).
- 5 years played with same team 80% counts towards team cap (20% savings towards other players).
- 6 years 5% each year thereafter etc. etc.
FANS and PLAYERS are happy because unlike the NFL there will be a mechanism that allows players and even encourages teams and players to be more loyal to each other. WIN WIN

Yes, teams will end up paying more than 32 million cap but at least it gives a bone to BOB to get back to the table to negotiate a fair settlement and team budgets will be more balanced and kept in check with a properly structured system.

Bob may not be totally happy as it's still a cap but it eliminates two of his excuses for not wanting a hard cap. This system also rewards the teams that manage their assets properly and put more effort into building a team though the draft, quality coaching and patience and may discourage teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and formerly the New York Rangers from attempting to outbid teams ala the New York Yankees and from playing veteran based teams while they leave their prospects in the minors or just develop them for other organizations like they have been doing for years. I see this as the best Salary Cap proposal any league has come up with to date. It's the only cap that takes into cosideration everyone concerned. Thanks Go Coyotes for getting us started in the right direction. Maybe we should mediate!

THOUGHTS?
I like it... Player's actually earn their salaries...

Habs4Life is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:23 PM
  #16
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
But ok, fine. The NHLPA is not offering the status quo. The NHLPA is offering a proposal that fails to address any of the issues behind the lockout. Better?
insults aside. ... yes thats better, because its the truth. the players offered to negotiate the #'s in their model, so why dont the owners even try going down that road ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 03:12 PM
  #17
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
insults aside. ... yes thats better, because its the truth. the players offered to negotiate the #'s in their model, so why dont the owners even try going down that road ?

dr
Why not take the players proposal as a starting point and tinker with the numbers? Because it's so far off the mark that it's not even on the same planet. It's not a starting point for negotiations, it's a PR exercise. It lets them say "Look! We're flexible! We're offering a luxury tax!" and people think they're willing to make things work, when in reality the proposal they've made has a luxury tax so lenient that it's completely pointless.

10% per dollar over $50 million? Why not 5% per dollar over a billlion? It's about as meaningful. With 10% per dollar over $50 million, even the most bloated payrolls in the league would have paid less than $3 million in luxury tax last season, and the thing would have generated less than $10 million league wide. That's worthless. That's not a starting point for negotiations.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 03:20 PM
  #18
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
Why not take the players proposal as a starting point and tinker with the numbers? Because it's so far off the mark that it's not even on the same planet. It's not a starting point for negotiations, it's a PR exercise. It lets them say "Look! We're flexible! We're offering a luxury tax!" and people think they're willing to make things work, when in reality the proposal they've made has a luxury tax so lenient that it's completely pointless.

10% per dollar over $50 million? Why not 5% per dollar over a billlion? It's about as meaningful. With 10% per dollar over $50 million, even the most bloated payrolls in the league would have paid less than $3 million in luxury tax last season, and the thing would have generated less than $10 million league wide. That's worthless. That's not a starting point for negotiations.
the players offered over 100m in concessions, its not status quo, whatever you think of it or not. thats the point im making.

remember, the people here maybe "educated" (or somewhat), but the NHL putting the "status quo" message to the general public is completly misleading. it is not status quo, period end of story.

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 04:12 PM
  #19
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Status quo (noun) the present situation
Quote:
Status quo is a Latin term meaning the present current, existing state of affairs.
Does an insignificant luxury tax change the existing state of affairs?
Does a 1-time 5% salary rollback change the existing state of affairs?

That's highly debateable. I think it's fair to believe that the NHLPA proposals would lead to a continuation of the existing financial problems in the league, so "status quo" is a fair description.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 10:24 AM
  #20
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
The players continue to want a FREE MARKET SYSTEM, which is what they have now........=status quo!!!! Just because they offered a 5% rollback for one year by the way, doesn't mean Knob Goodenow is doing some good for the business and the game! The other thing they want is a luxury tax like MLB!!! That's all I said, and continue to say. dr you are obviously a union guy, and so be it, that being said no one in the union is being paid right now and they just don't get it!!! They will still all be millionaires for $hit's sake... if they want to be even more rich then maybe they can buy a team when they retire and then they would see the other side of things and be changing their tune in a hurry!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 10:53 AM
  #21
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,252
vCash: 500
I still love the idea that someone had of signing a contract with the NHLPA to supply the players to the NHL. It'd be a fixed sum of say $930 million ($31M/team) and then let the NHLPA dole out the cash to the players a way they see fit. Of course they'd have to come to an agreement of how much the NHLPA would be willing to take as a total sum to supply the players, but it takes much of the problem out of the NHL's and the Owner's hands. Free agency would be a trick, but otherwise, it could be interesting.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 12:29 PM
  #22
MU_Beerman
Registered User
 
MU_Beerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 482
vCash: 500
status quo, schmoe, stop arguing over semantics and grow up.

And for your trolling pleasure, I'd bet if I really wanted to think about it I could think of 40 players I'd rather have than Markus Naslund, believe it or not.

And I like any proposal that allows teams to hold onto their stars. But Goodenow really isn't interested in that, is he? I think he just wants a system that can maintain the fat cat contracts for middling players like in the current system. The NHL is on the fringe of garage league status. I for one hope they can get their $hit in order.

MU_Beerman is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:23 PM
  #23
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I still love the idea that someone had of signing a contract with the NHLPA to supply the players to the NHL. It'd be a fixed sum of say $930 million ($31M/team) and then let the NHLPA dole out the cash to the players a way they see fit. Of course they'd have to come to an agreement of how much the NHLPA would be willing to take as a total sum to supply the players, but it takes much of the problem out of the NHL's and the Owner's hands. Free agency would be a trick, but otherwise, it could be interesting.
that was my idea ...

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 08:32 PM
  #24
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
Bob does not want a salary cap because he says it does not provide for a free market system. He adds that caps result in high player turnover and is not fair to the fans who want to cheer for their favourite players and not see them traded because of cap problems like other leagues OR to his players who might prefer or want to remain with their teams to maybe bring their families up in one stable environment. We all know the NHL is not a free market system already so adapt the following proposal as a framework for discussion and compromise and BOB should be at least somewhat satisfied with this proposal. I see it as a true compromise that should give everyone close to what they want out of a fair working agreement to both sides.

This is part of Bobs arguement that I find hard to agree with. Keep in mind I'm a far cry from being a business major but from the sounds of it Bob wants the big spenders to bail out the little guys...Which is not a free market for NHL owners...So is'nt it hypocritical of him to say "Our players deserve whatever NHL owners think they're worth in a free market". Well then, don't NHL owners deserve whatever they're worth in a free market without having to put $$$ out to lower income teams 'just because'? I got an idea for Bob...How about the players in the top 10% income bracket dish out 20% of their paychecks for lower market teams if the team they're playing for goes over XX amount of dollars??

Gary is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.