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 Should Offer 20% Salary Increase

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2004, 02:38 PM
  #1
Monty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Owners Should Offer 20% Salary Increase

If the 24 percent reduction on current salaries under contract is garnering so much PR, and the NHL will only look bad PR-wise if they don't offer a luxury tax and instead continue with the cost certainty mantra, then maybe the NHL should propose this:

(1) 20% increase in all salaries currently under contract,

(2) salary cap along the lines of what the owners have sought but not quite as harsh as the original version (or in the alternative a much much more onerous luxury tax with a $1 per $1 on anything over $35 or $40 million and even more at the $50 and $60 million level than the players have proposed),

(3) a much more owner-friendly arbitration or no arbitration rights, and

(4) the other owner-friendly changes proposed by the players.

Great PR move, eh? But sounds absurd, doesn't it? Or does it. Yes, some players under contract will get a raise with the most going to Jagr - $2 million. And teams like Toronto with still a lot of players under contract may have to pay $12 million or so more than otherwise. And for team with few players under contract will pay even less (e.g., the Caps currently have players under contract at around $20 and therefore will pay an extra $4 million this year).

But wait. We've got half a season at most this year. So, Jagr will only get $1 million more. Toronto will spend $6 million or so more. It will cost the Caps $2 million more this year. And certainly the current teams with more of the high-priced players are on average in a better financial position to pay this increase.

Next year it will cost the teams perhaps no more and maybe considerably less because while it will be a full season, a significant number of additional players will no longer be under the same contract. The following year the detrimental financial effect on the owners will be still less.

In the meantime, the long-term parts of the proposal will be significantly benefiting the owners on the bottom line.

And so much for the players' big PR move with the 24 percent reduction.

Of course, I don't see the owners being slick enough to offer this. Instead, I could see them offering a less harsh salary cap than their previous pre-Sept 15 offer or, alternatively, a much harsher luxury tax than the players' offered. And serious changes to the arbitration system. And due to the 24 percent offer by the players, some more of the interested public may start to side with the players.

But I don't think the 24 percent reduction is that big a concession in the grand scheme of a five to ten year CBA that still greatly benefits the players' ability and opportunity to raise salaries significantly each year, and that is why I threw out the 20 percent increase to show from a different perspective, why it is not that big when you consider (1) only half a season of salary this year for those under an existing contract, (2) a large percentage of the players aren't under contract anyway, or their contract will end after this year, and so their bargaining will be subject to the new limitations in the new CBA.

Monty is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 02:53 PM
  #2
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
(1) 20% increase in all salaries currently under contract,

Volcanologist is online now  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:04 PM
  #3
swflyers8*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Upper Darby, PA
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to swflyers8*
Quote:
1) 20% increase in all salaries currently under contract,
Yes, that's exactly what the NHL needs.

Just find a cap number that is fair to both sides.

swflyers8* is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:11 PM
  #4
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,911
vCash: 500
Well, Monty, I think that is a great plan. Seriously! #3 would need some working out, but other than that, it's great. I would really love seeing the ignorant sportscasters on ESPN and FOX try to figure that one out. :lol They are so clueless about the whole thing, they might actually have to do some research to understand what they are reporting.

rt is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:11 PM
  #5
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
dumb

You could also just find responsible GM's and owners who understand the concept of a budget.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:15 PM
  #6
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
The GMs understand the concept of a budget and everybody uses exactly as much money as he can, that's the problem...

Sanderson is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:21 PM
  #7
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,412
vCash: 500
I believe a 5% to 0% rollback would be great for NHL PR-wise, that would make the players realize they want a working system, not to downright cut player salaries just like that.

I think we're going to see $35M 100% tax, no arbitration, entry-contract bonus cap and a 5% rollback.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:24 PM
  #8
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson
The GMs understand the concept of a budget and everybody uses exactly as much money as he can, that's the problem...
These stupid Gms are always trying to win all of the time. That's messed up.

rt is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:27 PM
  #9
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
I think we're going to see $35M 100% tax, no arbitration, entry-contract bonus cap and a 5% rollback.
0% rollback would be better. The Gms gave these guys their contracts, they should honor them. I really like the $35M 100% tax, though.

rt is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:33 PM
  #10
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,707
vCash: 500
Given that the players were less then thrilled with giving up 24%, by coming back with an offer to roll back 5% or even 0% might win some over.

Then they may be more receptive to an actual negotiation

s7ark is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:38 PM
  #11
aqsw
PM
 
aqsw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 50
Lets give in to the greedy players.
1- Accept all their concessions except

salary tax

Lets go for $1.50 over 35M
$2.00 over 45M
$10.00 over 55M
P.S. A team must spend 30M to qualify for the salary tax rebate

An honest offer, and lets see the whining begin !!


aqsw is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 03:51 PM
  #12
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson
The GMs understand the concept of a budget and everybody uses exactly as much money as he can, that's the problem...
Then how can they claim to be losing money ? That's what a budget is , no ???

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:02 PM
  #13
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqsw
Lets give in to the greedy players.
1- Accept all their concessions except

salary tax

Lets go for $1.50 over 35M
$2.00 over 45M
$10.00 over 55M
P.S. A team must spend 30M to qualify for the salary tax rebate

An honest offer, and lets see the whining begin !!

what are you going to do about QO's, Rookie Salaries/bonuses, length of contracts, two way(baseball) or one way(the way its been) arbitration, how many times a player can go to arbitration BEFORE UFA age, age of Free Agency ... that's a pretty good tax structure

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:39 PM
  #14
pacde
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 85
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqsw
Lets give in to the greedy players.
1- Accept all their concessions except

salary tax

Lets go for $1.50 over 35M
$2.00 over 45M
$10.00 over 55M
P.S. A team must spend 30M to qualify for the salary tax rebate

An honest offer, and lets see the whining begin !!

I think they should accept all concessions and simply specify that any team that is over the $40 mill, cant sign any players until they move under. Either that or propose a reduced rollback with the above clause.

pacde is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 06:59 PM
  #15
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,002
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
You could also just find responsible GM's and owners who understand the concept of a budget.
Guys like Melnyk who wants to slash his payroll and balance the books (and whatevery comes with that in terms player personnel changes).

me2 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 09:07 PM
  #16
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
You could also just find responsible GM's and owners who understand the concept of a budget.
This is the only point pro PA guys can really come up with.

First of all, different teams have different budgets. Richer teams can afford to pay more for players. This inturn ruins it for teams with less money through arbitration and general negotiations. There are major problems with the system that need to be fixed including qualifying offers.

And if you fully expect that the owners will act responsibly, and keep salaries low if they accepted this proposal. Why wouldn't you consider putting a system in place that would override the system problems including overspending by GM's. I just don't understand your logic. I know Goodenow doesn't want cost certainty because he knows then, that his players won't make the money back that they offered to give up.

kerrly 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 07:40 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.