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.

owners proposal question

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 05:16 PM
  #1
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
owners proposal question

im curious...

some of the posters here think the owners will counter with a a cost certainty proposal that they have always intended will be the final result.

if the owners dont counter the players proposal based on the NHLPA's model and simply table an offer that has been sitting on their desk for the last 3 months, why have they waited to make the offer ?

why not just table the offer they have been sitting on 3 or 4 months ago and tell the PA here it is, love it or leave it, there will only be negotiations based on the context within, period and end of story. why bother with waiting for a players proposal they have never had any intention of negotiating from ?

so which is it, will they negotiate with the players based on the model presented on Thursday or will they prove they have been wasting time and playing "chicken" with the NHL season.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:31 PM
  #2
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
im curious...

some of the posters here think the owners will counter with a a cost certainty proposal that they have always intended will be the final result.

if the owners dont counter the players proposal based on the NHLPA's model and simply table an offer that has been sitting on their desk for the last 3 months, why have they waited to make the offer ?

why not just table the offer they have been sitting on 3 or 4 months ago and tell the PA here it is, love it or leave it, there will only be negotiations based on the context within, period and end of story. why bother with waiting for a players proposal they have never had any intention of negotiating from ?

so which is it, will they negotiate with the players based on the model presented on Thursday or will they prove they have been wasting time and playing "chicken" with the NHL season.

dr
They wanted the PA to present their offer so that they could assess their level of desperation. I'm sure the message came through loud and clear.

The NHL's offer will be a response to players offer, but it doesn't mean they need to abandon their core postitions. They can take portions of the PA offer and encorperate them into their framework.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:33 PM
  #3
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
They wanted the PA to present their offer so that they could assess their level of desperation. I'm sure the message came through loud and clear.

The NHL's offer will be a response to players offer, but it doesn't mean they need to abandon their core postitions. They can take portions of the PA offer and encorperate them into their framework.
why do they need to assess the level of desperation ? to extract even more than they really need ?

as far as i am concerned if the NHL doors opened tommorow, the NHL has scored a HUGE and DECISSIVE victory. now they want to rub it in some more because "they can" ? i call that being a bully.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:59 PM
  #4
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
why do they need to assess the level of desperation ? to extract even more than they really need ?

as far as i am concerned if the NHL doors opened tommorow, the NHL has scored a HUGE and DECISSIVE victory. now they want to rub it in some more because "they can" ? i call that being a bully.

dr
I thought you were in favour of all parties using whatever leverage they have?

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:02 PM
  #5
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
I thought you were in favour of all parties using whatever leverage they have?
well, as long as we know the reason is for leverage. but thats not why the owners are claiming they are doing what they are doing.

so is it simply for leverage reasons ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:10 PM
  #6
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well, as long as we know the reason is for leverage. but thats not why the owners are claiming they are doing what they are doing.

so is it simply for leverage reasons ?

dr
Weak PA's make for strong leagues.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:17 PM
  #7
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
I have no idea what the owners will do,

I sincerely hope that they part with their illogical fascination with "linkage" (even the word seems a little creepy doesnt it?) and negotiate based on the PA's current proposal.

Here is what I would like to see the Owners propose.

-Stiffer Luxury tax rates that kick in at 40 million dollars.

-Change in arbitration rules so that they can take a player to arbitration as many times as they like.

-A cap on the total bonuses that a rookie can receive.

-Changes to the qualifying system so that all players over 660K only have to be qualified at 100% vs. 105%.

If they can get these things as well as the 24% roll back then it is a grand slam victory for the owners, and a far better CBA than one with a hard cap around 45 million dollars.

For the record I would also like to point out that even if the owners do propose a system with some sort of linkage, it does not mean that the season is over. There is still time to negotiate based on the players proposal. I think people are being way over=dramatic when they say that the players will walk if Betman even utters the words "cost certainty".

Potatoe1 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:17 PM
  #8
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
The owners can respond within the context of the NHLPA's proposal and get cost certainty. All they need to do is change the luxury tax structure.

Payroll & tax
$32-41 million:100% tax
$42-51 million: 200% tax
$52 million or greater: 300% tax

It's effectively a hard cap using the players proposal.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:18 PM
  #9
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Weak PA's make for strong leagues.
again, is this what the stoppage is really about ? why dont the owners just say it ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:19 PM
  #10
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
The owners can respond within the context of the NHLPA's proposal and get cost certainty. All they need to do is change the luxury tax structure.

Payroll & tax
$32-41 million:100% tax
$42-51 million: 200% tax
$52 million or greater: 300% tax

It's effectively a hard cap using the players proposal.
are you suggesting a team with a 33m payroll will pay an additional 33m in tax ?

isnt that as useless as the players offering a hard cap of 300 million dollars ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:20 PM
  #11
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe
I have no idea what the owners will do,

I sincerely hope that they part with their illogical fascination with "linkage" (even the word seems a little creepy doesnt it?) and negotiate based on the PA's current proposal.

Here is what I would like to see the Owners propose.

-Stiffer Luxury tax rates that kick in at 40 million dollars.

-Change in arbitration rules so that they can take a player to arbitration as many times as they like.

-A cap on the total bonuses that a rookie can receive.

-Changes to the qualifying system so that all players over 660K only have to be qualified at 100% vs. 105%.

If they can get these things as well as the 24% roll back then it is a grand slam victory for the owners, and a far better CBA than one with a hard cap around 45 million dollars.

For the record I would also like to point out that even if the owners do propose a system with some sort of linkage, it does not mean that the season is over. There is still time to negotiate based on the players proposal. I think people are being way over=dramatic when they say that the players will walk if Betman even utters the words "cost certainty".
ok, but this is for another thread. my question is if the owners simply table an offer that is of no relation to the players, why didnt they just do it in Sept or Oct or prior ?

and if they did, then making the SAME offer now is NOT negotiating.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:40 PM
  #12
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
ok, but this is for another thread. my question is if the owners simply table an offer that is of no relation to the players, why didnít they just do it in Sept or Oct or prior ?

and if they did, then making the SAME offer now is NOT negotiating.

dr
Well to answer your question "directly" I think they would wait until now because the players are more likely to bend on their "no linkage" position with the season hanging in the balance.

There is no doubt that the closer we get to the seasons cancellation, the higher the stakes get for everyone.

Hey just to flip things around, why is it that the players waited until now to make such a solid offer, why not do it in Sept or Oct? (smile)

As for the negotiating part, if the owners come to the table with a reasonable offer that includes a linkage (I hope they don't) then yes they are technically negotiating.

Potatoe1 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:42 PM
  #13
Buffaloed
Administrator
Webmaster
 
Buffaloed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 24,934
vCash: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
are you suggesting a team with a 33m payroll will pay an additional 33m in tax ?
The tax is on amounts over the limit, so a team with a $33 million payroll would pay $1 million in tax. A team with a $41 million payroll would have to pay $9 million in tax, effectively making their payroll cost $50 million. I just threw these numbers out to show that the NHL can work within the context of the NHLPA proposal and work out something that addresses their cost certainty concern without going back to the hard cap solution. I think there's numbers in the middle that both sides can live with.

Buffaloed is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:44 PM
  #14
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffaloed
The tax is on amounts over the limit, so a team with a $33 million payroll would pay $1 million in tax. A team with a $41 million payroll would have to pay $9 million in tax, effectively making their payroll cost $50 million. I just threw these numbers out to show that the NHL can work within the context of the NHLPA proposal and work out something that addresses their cost certainty concern without going back to the hard cap solution. I think there's numbers in the middle that both sides can live with.
I understand and agree with you here on this, but I don't think it solves the problem entirely, just makes it easier to swallow because of the tax revenue generated that will go to the teams who need it most.

If the Detroit Red Wings have been spending $65 million a year, and there is a luxury tax threshold at $35 million that is dollar for dollar, I kind of get the feeling that the Red Wings will still spend $65 million a year, they'll just get less. Instead of $65 million on player salaries, they will be spending $50 million on player salaries and $15 million on luxury tax, for $65 million. That helps improve the situation because at least they aren't spending all of that money for the on-ice product, and up to 15 teams would benefit $1 million each from Detroit's spending, but it only drags the salaries so much too.

When you figure that Detroit isn't the only team that would be willing to go over the threshold, as Toronto, Philadelphia, New York, Dallas, etc. might be willing to exceed the threshold, you generate more luxury tax revenue for the poorer teams. However, you still have the spending teams setting the bar on the salaries, which is why the problems the NHL has faced could persist.

All of this excludes the suggestion of further taxing at higher levels, which I consider harder to pass because the NHLPA could see this as a way to kill inflation in the league. I think you aren't going to see such harsh leaps from 100% to 200% to 300% like that. Somehow I get the feeling they will only allow the glass to be full, not overflowing.

Like I said, I think a Luxury Tax system is probably better off than the Hard Cap system, because too many greatly developed teams would be unfairly disbanded under a Hard Cap, but I don't know if there is a perfect season. That's why I am not so concerned on how they get it done anymore, just get it done. In the end, it's the owners fault, not all the owners, but the most irresponsible owners who kept setting the bar higher to spit in their competition's face.

If there's a new way, I'd be the first in line. It better work this time.

Guest is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:57 PM
  #15
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I bet the owners had a proposal in their back pocket for so long. There is no way they didn't have one.

 
Old
12-12-2004, 01:03 AM
  #16
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
im curious...

some of the posters here think the owners will counter with a a cost certainty proposal that they have always intended will be the final result.

if the owners dont counter the players proposal based on the NHLPA's model and simply table an offer that has been sitting on their desk for the last 3 months, why have they waited to make the offer ?

why not just table the offer they have been sitting on 3 or 4 months ago and tell the PA here it is, love it or leave it, there will only be negotiations based on the context within, period and end of story. why bother with waiting for a players proposal they have never had any intention of negotiating from ?

so which is it, will they negotiate with the players based on the model presented on Thursday or will they prove they have been wasting time and playing "chicken" with the NHL season.

dr
Even on smaller scales, the negotiating process is never that simple (speaking from experience).

I've never been directly involved in something approaching this scale, though I've witnessed it from a moderately close perspective. Trust me, it becomes much more complicated.

We can only see so much from the surface, what's underneath is an entirely different story.

cws is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:06 AM
  #17
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
why do they need to assess the level of desperation ? to extract even more than they really need ?

as far as i am concerned if the NHL doors opened tommorow, the NHL has scored a HUGE and DECISSIVE victory. now they want to rub it in some more because "they can" ? i call that being a bully.

dr
This is off topic but who is your favourite team Dementedreality?

 
Old
12-12-2004, 01:16 AM
  #18
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
This is off topic but who is your favourite team Dementedreality?
i live in Calgary and am a die hard Canucks fan.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:18 AM
  #19
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i live in Calgary and am a die hard Canucks fan.

dr
Well for you to cheer on the Canucks at the Saddledome, there needs to be a linkage put in place so the Flames can continue to operate and offer you a enjoyable time when you go to see your Canucks in action against the defending western conference heavyweight champions of the world.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:24 AM
  #20
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Well for you to cheer on the Canucks at the Saddledome, there needs to be a linkage put in place so the Flames can continue to operate and offer you a enjoyable time when you go to see your Canucks in action against the defending western conference heavyweight champions of the world.
CGY is an NHL market, with or with out a salary cap. Its probably in the top 10 hockey markets on the planet. you dont think CGY can do what OTT has done ?

i cant believe as a Calgary fan you would sell yourself (and the Sutter/King combo) so short.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 01:30 AM
  #21
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
CGY is an NHL market, with or with out a salary cap. Its probably in the top 10 hockey markets on the planet. you dont think CGY can do what OTT has done ?

i cant believe as a Calgary fan you would sell yourself (and the Sutter/King combo) so short.

dr
If we hadnt made the playoffs we would of lost money. I belive in Sutter, and Ken King as our GM and President. They have both done a excellent job of putting together a competitve team, and marketing it. I think Sutter would of liked some other players, but due to restraints he was not able to sign or bring in. Look at the Saprykin/Gauther for Langkow deal, he said it made sence beacuse the salaries match. I think he could of pulled of Gauthier and a late round pick for Langkow if he wanted to but we cant. It does not matter if we are a top 10 market or not, we cannot retain our superstar Jarome Iginla under the current CBA withouth trading away half the roster. We cannot keep Mikka Kipprusoff, or how about Jordon Leopold, Robyn Regher, and Dion Phanuef these guys will all be good players, and once there deals are up we trade them away because we cant afford them, this cannot keep on happening. We had to trade away Theron Fluery, Joe Neuwindyk, Al MciNNis because of esclating salaries. Ottawa would love to get players, but they cannot either, there operating under a loss. Alos Ottawa has a billionaire owner we have Harley Hotchkiss and 6 other people.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:13 AM
  #22
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
If we hadnt made the playoffs we would of lost money. I belive in Sutter, and Ken King as our GM and President. They have both done a excellent job of putting together a competitve team, and marketing it. I think Sutter would of liked some other players, but due to restraints he was not able to sign or bring in. Look at the Saprykin/Gauther for Langkow deal, he said it made sence beacuse the salaries match. I think he could of pulled of Gauthier and a late round pick for Langkow if he wanted to but we cant. It does not matter if we are a top 10 market or not, we cannot retain our superstar Jarome Iginla under the current CBA withouth trading away half the roster. We cannot keep Mikka Kipprusoff, or how about Jordon Leopold, Robyn Regher, and Dion Phanuef these guys will all be good players, and once there deals are up we trade them away because we cant afford them, this cannot keep on happening. We had to trade away Theron Fluery, Joe Neuwindyk, Al MciNNis because of esclating salaries. Ottawa would love to get players, but they cannot either, there operating under a loss. Alos Ottawa has a billionaire owner we have Harley Hotchkiss and 6 other people.
1) those other people form a group of the wealthiest people in Canada. money is not a problem for the CGY ownership group.

2) are you not happy you dealt JN, AM and TF when you did ? would you have preferred to not have Iginla and Regeher and have had to pay for declining players ?

3) so CGY needed to make the playoffs to make money. who asked them to sign Brad Werenka to a 4 year 8m deal ? they are still paying him because he had a career ending injury and the deal was not insured. who asked them to pay Dave Lowry 900,000, could they not have gotten those 5 minutes a game for half the price from Josh Green (who was in training camp) ? who asked them to give Roman Turek such a stupid contract ? CGY made the playoffs and if they hadnt of cancelled this season would have had a second consecutive profitable year and like the Canucks have done built on it.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud 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 04:34 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.