Man, for the first time Iīm on the players side. Canīt those stupid A$$ just learn that they all (NHL teams) are the market for the players, if a Jaromir Jagr wonīt sign for USD$ 8M say good bye to him, let him play for peanuts in Czech Republic, carrying his own bag. If the players wonīt negotiate a salary cap, use a very hard luxury tax on free agent signing only. :mad:
We have tens of millions of people living in poverty in the richest country the planet has ever seen. When we fix that problem as a society, maybe we can get back to worrying about how many millions both sides can make for playing a game.
Don't want a salary cap of $40 million(or whatever large number it would be)? Then you can't have a salary floor either. No more of this FDR New Deal type stuff. No minimum of $250,000(obviously not talking about your normal, everyday minimum wage). If the owner wants to pay someone $0.35 a day to play hockey, then that's how it should be. Are these players better human beings than the kids in 3rd world countries? I don't think so. At least the kids put clothes on people. The players just "entertain" us for a few hours. Wow.
Our God, the Market, tells us that nobody really wants to watch hockey in the US. Yet the players want to continue to make millions as if anybody gives a damn, and the owners spent money they didn't have, because whatever fan base there is demanded a winner, because ticket prices are so high, which ran many fans out of the arena, and replaced them with corporate sponsers because the had to pay for the stars, with money they didn't have, because the fans demanded a winner, because they had to spend so much to see a game, which forced them to go to only a few games a year, which caused the need for corporate sponsers because the owners had to pay for the stars that the few fans had to have...
Screw the owners who spent money they didn't have. Screw the players who can't be bothered with a cap of 31, or 35, or 36, or 40 MILLION dollars for a 23 man team. Screw the fans who had to have that one last star free agent to finally put their team over the top, even though it didn't turn out that way the majority of the time.
I hope the league dies. I really do. We all deserve it.
u r absolutely right. if it weren't for the sake fo tradition, i'd wish the NHL went down. there are just way too many problems with it to fix over the course of a few years. the game is slowing down, players are getting stupider and stupider, owenrs think they should be making money and not losing money that they are spending. it's just a big bad circle filled with politics and pride that hsould be destroyed and rebuilt again. just wish there was another league strong and organized enough to take this huge task and run with it.
Good. That was a terrible proposal the NHLPA submitted. Wow! A 24% roll-back in salaries. Whoopie! If the wealthier teams are still allowed to drive the market unchecked, it will only be a year or two before the players make up that roll-back and they're right back where they started. The players are just trying to buy public support on this issue, but the proposal does not solve any of the issues.
HOWEVER, it is a good starting point. I would like a counter proposal from the owners that does not include the 24% roll-bakc, but stiffens the threshholds for the luxury tax.
__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
Are people that swayed over to the players side, re-thinking? The NHL's counter-proposal was good.
Are you sure it was good? I dont know all the details at the moment but one part is they planned to tax anybody with a salary over 5 million, 35% each season. I don't see how the players would except that...
The owners rejected pretty much the whole proposal by the union after the union took a big hit with the 24% roll back. The League should have added to the union's proposal not burry it. I am on the players side at this time.
Are you sure it was good? I dont know all the details at the moment but one part is they planned to tax anybody with a salary over 5 million, 35% each season. I don't see how the players would except that...
The owners rejected pretty much the whole proposal by the union after the union took a big hit with the 24% roll back. The League should have added to the union's proposal not burry it. I am on the players side at this time.
Why wouldn't they accept it? They were about to roll back their salaries 24%, and now a lot of players will only get a rollback of a little bit.. (Some even a 0% rollback.)
They rejected the whole proposal because the whole proposal was $)-(it.
Are you sure it was good? I dont know all the details at the moment but one part is they planned to tax anybody with a salary over 5 million, 35% each season. I don't see how the players would except that...
The owners rejected pretty much the whole proposal by the union after the union took a big hit with the 24% roll back. The League should have added to the union's proposal not burry it. I am on the players side at this time.
You're wrong. They offered a graduated roll back:
Under our counter-proposal, any player making less than $800,000 would not see his salary diminished at all. Under our proposal, the reduction for a player making between $800,000 and $1.49 million would be 15 per cent. The reduction for a player making $1.5 million to $1.99 million would be 20 per cent. The reduction for a player making $2 million to $3.99 million would be the 24 per cent the union leadership offered. The reduction for a player making between $4 million and $4.99 million would be 30 per cent . . . And the reduction for a player making $5 million or more would be 35 per cent. 731 of our players - 91.8 pe cent - would be at or below the union's proposed 24 per cent...
Under our counter-proposal, any player making less than $800,000 would not see his salary diminished at all. Under our proposal, the reduction for a player making between $800,000 and $1.49 million would be 15 per cent. The reduction for a player making $1.5 million to $1.99 million would be 20 per cent. The reduction for a player making $2 million to $3.99 million would be the 24 per cent the union leadership offered. The reduction for a player making between $4 million and $4.99 million would be 30 per cent . . . And the reduction for a player making $5 million or more would be 35 per cent. 731 of our players - 91.8 pe cent - would be at or below the union's proposed 24 per cent...
Basically what I see from that is they want to totally cut high salaries and I dont think that is fair. A player like Palffy should be aloud to make about 5 million a year without giving anything back. wasn't it just simple to have a 24% salary cut? The league totally rejected the luxary tax method.
The way I see it is the owners want to come out 100% winners while the players come out 100% losers and that is why there will be no season.
Basically what I see from that is they want to totally cut high salaries and I dont think that is fair. A player like Palffy should be aloud to make about 5 million a year without giving anything back. wasn't it just simple to have a 24% salary cut? The league totally rejected the luxary tax method.
The way I see it is the owners want to come out 100% winners while the players come out 100% losers and that is why there will be no season.
As if the higher paid players are going to die if they don't have that extra $3M. Please.. Even if you take a rollback when you make over $5M, you'll still have plenty.
Basically what I see from that is they want to totally cut high salaries and I dont think that is fair. A player like Palffy should be aloud to make about 5 million a year without giving anything back. wasn't it just simple to have a 24% salary cut? The league totally rejected the luxary tax method.
The way I see it is the owners want to come out 100% winners while the players come out 100% losers and that is why there will be no season.
What the league "said" here is that the lower tier players salaries aren't a problem. OK Palffy makes 5 and Jagr makes a little over 7-million/yr with his 35% contract reduction. They can't go into a new economic system with guys in the 8+ million dollar range to start...You are correct, they want to WAY cut the high salaries...Roenick is already in the press slamming the League for turning down the Union's offer...He would lose an additional 11% under the League's proposal. Screw JR, if he can't get by on $4,550,000, let him get a job!
Or go find and play for another league in North America, Europe or Russia that will pay him his exorbitant salary.
What's that you say? There isn't one? Oh, bummer.
You are 100% right.Players seem to think that hockey is as popular as the other major sports and that they should get similar pay.Unfortunately I don't think hockey even ranks in the top 5 spectator sports in America. The players need to re-evaluate their position because if hockey ceased to exist tomorrow the majority of the United States would not even care.
"The league proposal contained a cap, which, based on last year's economics, would see team player payrolls range between a minimum of $34.6 million and maximum of $38.6 million.
The league also revamped the union's 24 percent rollback offer by significantly reducing the salaries of the richest players and leaving others untouched. Players making less than $800,000 would not have their salary decreased. Those making $5 million or more would have 35 percent taken away from their existing contracts.
McKenzie's $700,000 salary wouldn't be affected, but Pronger, the league's MVP in 2000, would see his $10 million salary reduced to $6.5 million.
"If it weren't so disappointing it would be comical," McKenzie said. "Basically, the league has taken our 24 percent rollback, put it in their pocket and said 'Thank you' as it though it were some kind of tip, and then said 'Now we'll negotiate and we'll go back to getting this cap.' "
^^^That's how I see it. The owners were the ones that handed out these contracts now they want to fix THEIR mistake by flat out screwing the players.
"The league proposal contained a cap, which, based on last year's economics, would see team player payrolls range between a minimum of $34.6 million and maximum of $38.6 million.
The league also revamped the union's 24 percent rollback offer by significantly reducing the salaries of the richest players and leaving others untouched. Players making less than $800,000 would not have their salary decreased. Those making $5 million or more would have 35 percent taken away from their existing contracts.
McKenzie's $700,000 salary wouldn't be affected, but Pronger, the league's MVP in 2000, would see his $10 million salary reduced to $6.5 million.
"If it weren't so disappointing it would be comical," McKenzie said. "Basically, the league has taken our 24 percent rollback, put it in their pocket and said 'Thank you' as it though it were some kind of tip, and then said 'Now we'll negotiate and we'll go back to getting this cap.' "
^^^That's how I see it. The owners were the ones that handed out these contracts now they want to fix THEIR mistake by flat out screwing the players.
But dont you see that these guys are only playing a game, a GAME mind you, for 6.5 million a year? If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he go and play in the other pro hockey league that will pay him that much to play a game....oh wait there isn't one. Sure the owners screwd up, but are trying to fix it. the players seem to think that regardless they should be making that kind of money. I really hope there are replacement players soon.....
But dont you see that these guys are only playing a game, a GAME mind you, for 6.5 million a year? If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he go and play in the other pro hockey league that will pay him that much to play a game....oh wait there isn't one. Sure the owners screwd up, but are trying to fix it. the players seem to think that regardless they should be making that kind of money. I really hope there are replacement players soon.....
Even though their are players on the Kings roster that I like, my love for the game and the team goes beyond the players who play it. I would rather see the Kings ice a team of no-name players than to see nothing at all. At least I would be able to watch my team play my favorite sport.
But dont you see that these guys are only playing a game, a GAME mind you, for 6.5 million a year? If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he go and play in the other pro hockey league that will pay him that much to play a game....oh wait there isn't one. Sure the owners screwd up, but are trying to fix it. the players seem to think that regardless they should be making that kind of money. I really hope there are replacement players soon.....
it has nothign to do with a "game" or anything, it has to do with the money generated. players should not get less pay just cuase they're playing a "game", just like an actor shouldn't get less money just cuase he's just making a "movie". work is work, this is how they make their money and they happen to be good at it.
now players ARE the product and they DO generate a lot ofmoney. this is a multi million dollar a year business for one franchise ALONE, do u not think the players should get a part of that? the owners should take the hit in their wallet for giving out stupid contracts, BUT this system is geared towards raising salaries. that's why i think the luxury tax is perfect, it works at slowing down the salary increase while giving enough flexibility to move around if a franchise is making enough money to afford it.
with that said, i still think the nhlpa's proposal was one of the biggest piece of crap proposals i've ever heard. if i were on the owner's side, i would have walked out. that proposal did NOTHING to slow down salaries. at the end of this, if bettman and goodenow are still at the helms of their organizations, i am seroiusly going to consider never going to another game again. it's a tragedy we're letting two idiots run this league
Last edited by David A. Rainer: 12-15-2004 at 07:24 PM.
But dont you see that these guys are only playing a game, a GAME mind you, for 6.5 million a year? If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he go and play in the other pro hockey league that will pay him that much to play a game....oh wait there isn't one. Sure the owners screwd up, but are trying to fix it. the players seem to think that regardless they should be making that kind of money. I really hope there are replacement players soon.....
Agreed. Fans need to get over the notion that owners are to blame, and they should be crucified for life. Yeah, they've made mistakes along the way but it was simply to keep fans in the seats and retain their own star players, before teams like the Rangers could snag em'. The league is lopsided and dilluted and has more problems than just economics. Our problems mainly exist with our top end players. Some of them shouldn't even be in that bracket. For Holik to call the owners liars? I mean WTF? Who is this guy kidding? He's done dick all with the Rangers and makes an obscene amount of money. He should go back to his native land and see what he makes there. The best thing for him to do is just thank his lucky stars and shut the ***** up. The TSN solution had the right idea, but we have two nobs running things at the moment.........
One last thing. OWNERS......Key word here being OWNERS have all the right in the world to make as much money as they want no matter what the industry is. These players are treated like royalty and have tons of perks............am I jealous hell yeah, but if it was the sake of making six million and going to five million I wouldn't be crying..........and as far as feeding family goes. I could feed everyones family.......WTF do these people eat anyways?
I hate Bettman! He better never get on an elevator alone with me, cause he walks out with a busted nose or worse. What a twerp!
You want cost certainty, don't sign the contract, end of story.
Brilliant comment there. "dont sign the contract".... like stupid teams like the rangers or toronto wont do that. thats the only way they think you can win. keep throwing money at it, and it has a ripple effect. everyone blames the owners, when in fact only about 15% of the owners are the real problem...
But dont you see that these guys are only playing a game, a GAME mind you, for 6.5 million a year? If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he go and play in the other pro hockey league that will pay him that much to play a game....oh wait there isn't one. Sure the owners screwd up, but are trying to fix it. the players seem to think that regardless they should be making that kind of money. I really hope there are replacement players soon.....
When pronger got that 10 million dollar contract he was still only playig a game. Ya the guy is still going to make 6.5 million and that's a lot but there is a big difference between 6.5 million and 10 million. If, you look at it like that all athletes are making way too much and I know hockey doesn't generate as much money as other sports but look how big contracts in those sports are...
Or go find and play for another league in North America, Europe or Russia that will pay him his exorbitant salary.
What's that you say? There isn't one? Oh, bummer.
Thatīs why I think there is no need of a salary cap. Create some kind of responsable comittee (to regulate the rangers and the Maple Leafs) and a good and effective arbitration system. If a player refuses to play for the team that has his rights (what happened with Yashin and Allisson, and look on those two careers right now) after the arbitration decision this player should be banned from the league.
:mad:
