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.

Cba Proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2004, 02:08 PM
  #1
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
Cba Proposal

Proposed Solution:

1) Immediate Rollback:
Following NHL proposal.
< $800,000: no rollback
$800k-$1.5m: 15% rollback
$1.5m-$2m: 20% rollback
$2m-$4m: 24% rollback
$4m-$5m: 30% rollback
>$5m: 35% rollback

2) Arbitration:
Following TSN proposal.
Two-way arbitration.
Both teams and players can elect.
High/low system - arbitrator picks one or the other offer.
Absolute cut-off date for contracts = 1st day of season.
1st day of season establishes team payroll.

3) Entry system:
Following NHL and TSN proposal.
Cap base salary at $850k.
Cap signing bonus at 25%.
Cap bonuses at 100% of base salary (i.e. $1.7mil/yr).

4) Qualifying Offers:
Following TSN proposal.
Min. qualifying offer 75% of salary.

5) Free Agency:
Following TSN proposal.
Reduce unrestricted free agency to 30 yrs or 10 yrs of service (min 28 yrs).

6) Minimum Salary:
Following NHL proposal.
Raise to $300k.

7) Systemic Changes:
a) Payroll tax:
Install luxury tax on payroll.
Target = $40m
$40-$44m = 100% tax
$44-$48m = 110% tax
$48-$52m = 120% tax
$52-$56m = 130% tax
$56-$60m = 140% tax
>$60m = 150% tax
10% added to tax for each successive year at
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $30-40m.
If payroll < $30m, do not get share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).

b) Player salary tax:
Install luxury tax on individual player salaries over $4m.
<$4m: no tax
$4-5m: 15% tax
>$5m: 30% tax
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $30-40m.
If payroll < $30m, do not get share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).

c) Bonus Cap.
Absolute cap of bonuses at 15% of salary.

regehr is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 02:29 PM
  #2
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,849
vCash: 500
A luxury tax is apparently just not on the table? Counter-proposal:

1. Major systemic concession by players: Payroll range system with cost certainty.
Per the league's latest offer, a salary floor/cap system will be put in place, tied to league revenues. Teams will be required to set their payroll so that it falls between 52% and 60% of the per-team league revenue figure. This is a small step up from the %s proposed by the league in their latest offer, but on average would result in 56% of league revenues going to player salaries. This is equivalent to a salary cap on last-year figures of about $40M at the high end, but also forces teams to have a minimum payroll of about $32M on the low end. This would put the total payroll payouts to the players at the same level as their 24% rollback plan would. The cap max and min would shift from year to year as league revenues increase or decrease.

1.1 Corrollary concession by owners: Accounting Auditing partnerships
The players contend that one reason for opposing cost certainty is that they can't trust the bookkeeping of the owners. So each owner will have to accept an NHLPA-designated accountant as a member of their financial front office. The NHLPA accounting rep will have full and continual access to all financial data for the team s/he is assigned to monitor. The NHLPA can choose whoever they want to fill these positions, and the league and NHLPA will split salary costs (e.g. 30 accountants @ 100k per year = $3M, so it's not a big financial burden either way).

1.2 Corrollary concession by owners: Salary Cap transitional rules
All contracts remain guaranteed, with provision for buyouts at 2/3rds of the total remaining value on the contracts. Teams may designate 2 existing player contracts to hold outside of the salary cap, but when these contracts expire, the teams will thereafter be fully subject to the restrictions of the cap. (e.g. if you have a Yashin or Jagr or Pronger with huge deals, you can take them outside of the cap for now to help get down). For each salary held outside of the cap, teams will pay a 25% fine on the contract into the league revenue sharing stream.

1.3 Additional concessions:Salary rollbacks
Neither the 24% rollback the NHLPA proposed nor the equivalent 0-35% rollback suggest by the NHL needs to be implemented. The NHLPA will be tasked with deciding on how they want to implement a one-time rollback on all existing contracts which sees an immediate 15% reduction in total player salaries. How they want to achieve that 15% is entirely up to the NHLPA.

2. Salary Arbitration
I'm going to have to side with Healy on this for now... you can't just throw it away. So: players have a 1-time right to file for salary arbitration as RFAs. Teams likewise have the option to file for arbitration 2 times per season. In every case, the awards are either/or acceptance of the player or team submittals, the arbitrator cannot choose any other value. Teams have the right to accept the award as a 1- or 2-year contract at their discretion. Teams can walk away from any award rendering the player an unrestricted free agent at any time.

3. Qualifiying offers
For restricted free agents, qualifying offers are 100% for players earning less than the league median salary (currently $800,000). QO's are 80% for players above the league median salary.

4. Entry level system
Accept the NHLPA's 3-year entry level system with max base salary of $850,000. Allow up to 6 "Type B" bonuses of max $250,000 each for approaching major league awards, all star team berths, etc. But throw away the "Type A" bonuses. This allows a maximum of $1.5M in bonuses, for a total max entry level salary of $2.3M.

5. Unrestricted free agency
Compromise... lower the age to 30. Or 10 years NHL experience.

6. Entry draft
Retain the current framework, but make the following changes:
1st round: all players 18 years and older are eligible
2nd-3rd round: all players 19 years and older are eligible
4th-9th round: all players 20 years and older are eligible
Teams retain rights on graduating juniors until one year after they finish junior, they retain rights on drafted NCAA players until 1 year after they graduate, they retain rights on European prospects for max 3 years, after which the players re-enter the draft if they are below 24, or become unrestricted free agents at 24 and over.

7. Revenue sharing
The league has carte blanche to address revenue sharing however they want... or leave it aside entirely. My propsoal would be to share all non-gate-receipt revenues equitably (advertising, TV contracts, etc), along with any over-cap tax amounts per 1.2. But really, it's their money, so whatever. Just keeping in mind that what they do will tie-in with the 52-60% cap/cost certainty range, and teams will have to be profitable enough to meet the minimum salary floor.

8. Schedule and other considerations
Establish a rules committee to look at the game. Give the NHLPA reps one vote per team along with the board of governors on any rule/format changes for the league. Consider reducing schedule to 76 games, etc, at a later date pending first round of recommendations and subsequent board/NHLPA voting from the committee.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-19-2004, 11:14 PM
  #3
regehr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mars
Posts: 744
vCash: 500
So again it comes down to luxury tax vs. cost certainty. Personally, I think cost certainty is asking for too much. You cannot put in place a system that is idiot-proof. On the other hand, you really do need to have serious disincentives for carrying a high payroll (starting at 100% tax, not 20% as the NHLPA has offered). I've also added an additional measure that hasn't been offered: a luxury tax on individual salaries over $4 million. So, it encourages teams to spend very wisely about this threshold *and* to spend very wisely over a $40 million payroll.

It all comes down to whether you believe an incentive/disincentive vs. regulation. Regulation is more certain, incentives/disincentives are more effective. The NHL's current proposal would almost certainly sink several franchines and penalizes teams that have effectively managed their payrolls (can you imagine Nashville with a $34 million payroll??).

regehr is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 03:48 AM
  #4
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
2. Salary Arbitration
I'm going to have to side with Healy on this for now... you can't just throw it away.
Why? Only a small number of players opt for arbitration, usually around 40 or so. And most of them usually settle before ever getting to arbitration.

There are dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of contracts worked out each year the good old fashioned way, two sides coming to an agreement that both sides are happy with.

This "arbitration is vital" stuff just doesn't wash.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 04:32 AM
  #5
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,349
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien

4. Entry level system
Accept the NHLPA's 3-year entry level system with max base salary of $850,000. Allow up to 6 "Type B" bonuses of max $250,000 each for approaching major league awards, all star team berths, etc. But throw away the "Type A" bonuses. This allows a maximum of $1.5M in bonuses, for a total max entry level salary of $2.3M.

The idea of earning twice as much in bonuses as base pay is poor. The bonus's are way to high. They should be set at 50% of the contract maximum (around $425K) in this case. Make each bonus clause worth roughly $100K. If a player gets more than $425K in bonuses (ie 6 bonuses of $100K) it is rounded down to $425K.
An extra $425K is plenty of incentive.


In fact it could be much lower, around $40K per bonus, and around $200K mark max payout. Then make it compulsory on all rookie contracts. This way a 8th rnder who makes all of the bonuses gets paid the same bonuses as a 1st overall pick who makes them. Let every prospect compete on results.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 08:43 AM
  #6
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Why? Only a small number of players opt for arbitration, usually around 40 or so. And most of them usually settle before ever getting to arbitration.

There are dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of contracts worked out each year the good old fashioned way, two sides coming to an agreement that both sides are happy with.

This "arbitration is vital" stuff just doesn't wash.
If there was no arbitration, there would be no incentive for the owners and players to come to terms on their own. Remove arbitration, and you will see more holdouts instead. Arbitration has driven up player salaries, but those salaries are still below what the player would recieve on the free market as a UFA.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 09:58 AM
  #7
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Why? Only a small number of players opt for arbitration, usually around 40 or so. And most of them usually settle before ever getting to arbitration.

There are dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds of contracts worked out each year the good old fashioned way, two sides coming to an agreement that both sides are happy with.

This "arbitration is vital" stuff just doesn't wash.
I don't think it's vital either, but the PA seems to. Partly, it has been so vital in the past because the owners had very little pressure on them to just walk away from outlandish awards. Typically, they would just swallow hard and take their lumps on whatever the arbitrator awarded. With some form of cap in place, however, walk-aways will become more common, and the impact of arbitration, or the threat of arbitration would lose a lot of its value. Therefore, if the players are as set on keeping it as they seem to be, I don't mind letting them keeping it, as one concession towards getting a cap.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 10:02 AM
  #8
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
Modified Proposed Solution:

1) Immediate Rollback:
On each individual contract
< $800,000: 5% rollback
$800k-$1.5m: 10% rollback
$1.5m-$2m: 15% rollback
$2m-$4m: 20% rollback
$4m-$5m: 25% rollback
$5m-$6m: 30% rollback
>$6m: 35% rollback
$10m player pays $40k + $70k + 75k + $400k + $250k + $300k + $1.4m = $2.535m or 25.35%

2) Arbitration:
Following TSN proposal.
Two-way arbitration.
Both teams and players can elect.
High/low system - arbitrator picks one or the other offer.
Absolute cut-off date for contracts = 1st day of season.
1st day of season establishes team payroll.

3) Entry system:
3 year deal.
Base salary at League Minimum.
Cap signing bonus at 50% of league average salary.
Cap bonuses at 100% of league average salary.
Signing bonus counts 100% to each years bonuses cap.

4) Qualifying Offers:
Min. qualifying offer 75% of salary.
Entry level qualified at 110%.

5) Free Agency:
Reduce unrestricted free agency to 30 yrs or 10 yrs of service (min 28 yrs).
RFA raises capped at 100% or league average, whichever is higher.
Contract length capped at 5 years.

6) Minimum Salary:
Raise to $300k.

7) Systemic Changes:
a) Payroll tax:
Install luxury tax on payroll.
Target = $40m
$40-$44m = 100% tax
$44-$48m = 110% tax
$48-$52m = 120% tax
$52-$56m = 130% tax
$56-$60m = 140% tax
>$60m = 150% tax
10% added to tax for each successive year at
Taxes redistributed to teams with payrolls between $30-40m.
If payroll < $30m, do not get share of taxes.
Payroll is established on cut-off date (1st day of season).

Signing bonuses count fully for luxury tax, but only the average counts to the $30m. A $15m bonus for a 3 yr contract would count as $15m for all 3 years for luxury tax costs, but only as $5m per year for reaching the $30m level for tax distribution.


c) Bonus Cap.
Absolute cap of bonuses at 15% of salary.

8) Revenue Sharing:
10% of team revenue shall be pooled and shared.
(A penalty for luxury tax excess could be tied to revenue sharing.)

Playoff gate revenue for the first round shall be shared: 50% to home team, 50% to all league teams. Second round revenue shall be divided in the same manner to all playoff teams. Third round to all second round teams. Fourth round to all 3rd round teams.

BM67 is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 10:06 AM
  #9
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
The idea of earning twice as much in bonuses as base pay is poor. The bonus's are way to high. They should be set at 50% of the contract maximum (around $425K) in this case. Make each bonus clause worth roughly $100K. If a player gets more than $425K in bonuses (ie 6 bonuses of $100K) it is rounded down to $425K.
An extra $425K is plenty of incentive.


In fact it could be much lower, around $40K per bonus, and around $200K mark max payout. Then make it compulsory on all rookie contracts. This way a 8th rnder who makes all of the bonuses gets paid the same bonuses as a 1st overall pick who makes them. Let every prospect compete on results.
The problem with having a very stiff entry level contract is that the NHL could be left off with a lot a ''FUTURE SUPERSTARS'' that could earn way more by playing in europe.

I just don't understand what is the problem with an Ilya Kovalchuk having a 4M$ a year season (1M$ salary + 3M$ bonus achievement) if he's giving you 41 goals & 80+ pts.

I have a problem with a Rick Dipietro & Marc André Fleury have 4M$ by putting a 3,00 GAA & ,890% saves for 25 games. This is ridiculous.

Things that could go both way is to already determine the bonuses like

10 goals = 250,000$
20 goals = 500,000$
30 goals = 1,000,000$
40 goals = 1,500,000$
---------------------------
30 assists = 500,000$
40 assists = 1,000,000$
50 assists + = 1,500,000$

and so on.

That way we won'T penalize the real good future 18-20 years old superstars that would like to come in the league & those who won't produce should not have bonuses.

Same thing could apply to goaltenders & defensman etc.....

with a 600,000$ + no bonuses type of contract for 4 years, we could be left off with very good players coming 2 or 3 years later than he should be in the NHL.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 10:11 AM
  #10
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
The idea of earning twice as much in bonuses as base pay is poor. The bonus's are way to high. They should be set at 50% of the contract maximum (around $425K) in this case. Make each bonus clause worth roughly $100K. If a player gets more than $425K in bonuses (ie 6 bonuses of $100K) it is rounded down to $425K.
An extra $425K is plenty of incentive.
If anything, I would actually be willing to give up more on the entry level side of my proposal than to take away from it. I've never really accepted the idea that an entry level player should automatically have his salary held at an artificially low level, if his performance is well above that level.

Even the 'A' bonuses in the NHLPA's plan call for 20 goals, 35 assists, 60 points, or other similar levels of achievement for them to kick in. Putting up to k850,000 additional bonus for this is not unreasonable, IMO, although I would prefer to limit the categories if I wasn't throwing the 'A' type bonuses away entirely.

As for the 'B' type bonuses, for top-15 in the league scoring categories, top-10 in major award voting, or 1st or 2nd all-star team berths, etc... to me, those are definitely fair. If a player is performing at that level, he is one of the big stars of the game. And if his salary is capped at k850,000, then he totally deserves at least an additional k850,000 in bonuses.
Quote:
In fact it could be much lower, around $40K per bonus, and around $200K mark max payout. Then make it compulsory on all rookie contracts. This way a 8th rnder who makes all of the bonuses gets paid the same bonuses as a 1st overall pick who makes them. Let every prospect compete on results.
The 8th rounder can still have all the same bonuses, but probably won't get the max base salary of k850,000.

Anyway, bottom line, I wouldn't want to go overboard on hitting the rookies, and especially not the rookie stars. There's more money and more bang-for-the-buck to be made by hitting some other areas of the negotiations harder. The NHLPA has "graciously" offered to throw the rookies under the bus, so I wouldn't fault the NHL for taking them up on the offer, but then I wouldn't want to see the NHL go a step further and back up and run over the rookies repeatedly just to make sure they're really dead.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 10:56 AM
  #11
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
A luxury tax is apparently just not on the table? Counter-proposal:

1. Major systemic concession by players: Payroll range system with cost certainty.
Per the league's latest offer, a salary floor/cap system will be put in place, tied to league revenues. Teams will be required to set their payroll so that it falls between 52% and 60% of the per-team league revenue figure. This is a small step up from the %s proposed by the league in their latest offer, but on average would result in 56% of league revenues going to player salaries. This is equivalent to a salary cap on last-year figures of about $40M at the high end, but also forces teams to have a minimum payroll of about $32M on the low end. This would put the total payroll payouts to the players at the same level as their 24% rollback plan would. The cap max and min would shift from year to year as league revenues increase or decrease..
Okay. If this is the only way to play hockey, I guess so.

.
Quote:
1.1 Corrollary concession by owners: Accounting Auditing partnerships
The players contend that one reason for opposing cost certainty is that they can't trust the bookkeeping of the owners. So each owner will have to accept an NHLPA-designated accountant as a member of their financial front office. The NHLPA accounting rep will have full and continual access to all financial data for the team s/he is assigned to monitor. The NHLPA can choose whoever they want to fill these positions, and the league and NHLPA will split salary costs (e.g. 30 accountants @ 100k per year = $3M, so it's not a big financial burden either way).

1.2 Corrollary concession by owners: Salary Cap transitional rules
All contracts remain guaranteed, with provision for buyouts at 2/3rds of the total remaining value on the contracts. Teams may designate 2 existing player contracts to hold outside of the salary cap, but when these contracts expire, the teams will thereafter be fully subject to the restrictions of the cap. (e.g. if you have a Yashin or Jagr or Pronger with huge deals, you can take them outside of the cap for now to help get down). For each salary held outside of the cap, teams will pay a 25% fine on the contract into the league revenue sharing stream..
Concessions? What concessions?


Quote:
1.3 Additional concessions:Salary rollbacks
Neither the 24% rollback the NHLPA proposed nor the equivalent 0-35% rollback suggest by the NHL needs to be implemented. The NHLPA will be tasked with deciding on how they want to implement a one-time rollback on all existing contracts which sees an immediate 15% reduction in total player salaries. How they want to achieve that 15% is entirely up to the NHLPA..
You'd better have some kind of transition period without concessions.

Quote:
2. Salary Arbitration
I'm going to have to side with Healy on this for now... you can't just throw it away. So: players have a 1-time right to file for salary arbitration as RFAs. Teams likewise have the option to file for arbitration 2 times per season. In every case, the awards are either/or acceptance of the player or team submittals, the arbitrator cannot choose any other value. Teams have the right to accept the award as a 1- or 2-year contract at their discretion. Teams can walk away from any award rendering the player an unrestricted free agent at any time..
No. If you get your cap, we don't want arbitration.



Quote:
3. Qualifiying offers
For restricted free agents, qualifying offers are 100% for players earning less than the league median salary (currently $800,000). QO's are 80% for players above the league median salary..
We won't be needding those anymore, because we'll all be free agents at the end of every contract.


Quote:
4. Entry level system
Accept the NHLPA's 3-year entry level system with max base salary of $850,000. Allow up to 6 "Type B" bonuses of max $250,000 each for approaching major league awards, all star team berths, etc. But throw away the "Type A" bonuses. This allows a maximum of $1.5M in bonuses, for a total max entry level salary of $2.3M..
We won't be needing that any more because you've got your cap.
The only reason we ever signed that was to help you guys control yourselves.
But now you have the ultimate form of self control.
So you can forget about that.

Quote:
5. Unrestricted free agency
Compromise... lower the age to 30. Or 10 years NHL experience. .

Get real. You just saved a bundle on the salary cap.
Unlimited UFA status ... I'll negotiate this far, and this far only.
5 years in the league or 25 years old, which ever comes first. That's the new UFA status.
Take it or leave it.

Quote:
6. Entry draft
Retain the current framework, but make the following changes:
1st round: all players 18 years and older are eligible
2nd-3rd round: all players 19 years and older are eligible
4th-9th round: all players 20 years and older are eligible
Teams retain rights on graduating juniors until one year after they finish junior, they retain rights on drafted NCAA players until 1 year after they graduate, they retain rights on European prospects for max 3 years, after which the players re-enter the draft if they are below 24, or become unrestricted free agents at 24 and over..
Since the league has already achieved infinite parity with your salary cap, we no longer need to have an entry draft.
But we won't get into that now.
We like your idea about the age differences. It's not good for us as a union, but it is good for the game and hockey players in general.
However, we disagree on retention rights.
Here's the rule:
Draft player. Own rights for one year. He then becomes a UFA.

Sorry, but in exchange for giving up billions of salary dollars (now and in the future), we desire freedom.

Quote:
7. Revenue sharing
The league has carte blanche to address revenue sharing however they want... or leave it aside entirely. My propsoal would be to share all non-gate-receipt revenues equitably (advertising, TV contracts, etc), along with any over-cap tax amounts per 1.2. But really, it's their money, so whatever. Just keeping in mind that what they do will tie-in with the 52-60% cap/cost certainty range, and teams will have to be profitable enough to meet the minimum salary floor..
Let's be honest. You've got your cap.
Who really cares about revenue sharing. We share what we share now.


Quote:
8. Schedule and other considerations
Establish a rules committee to look at the game. Give the NHLPA reps one vote per team along with the board of governors on any rule/format changes for the league. Consider reducing schedule to 76 games, etc, at a later date pending first round of recommendations and subsequent board/NHLPA voting from the committee.
Yeah, we're sure you'll get right on that.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 11:52 AM
  #12
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Okay. If this is the only way to play hockey, I guess so.

Concessions? What concessions?

You'd better have some kind of transition period without concessions.
Such as? I don't really understand what you mean. It's a concession to allow the NHLPA to station employees in the owners' front offices (one which actually I don't believe the NHL would ever agree to, but which I personally think would help establish trust and partnership). It's a concession to allow 2 player contracts to exist outside of the cap. What's your alternative?
Quote:
No. If you get your cap, we don't want arbitration.
Who's "we"? The players want arbitration. With or without a cap.
Quote:
We won't be needding those anymore, because we'll all be free agents at the end of every contract.
No you won't.
Quote:
We won't be needing that any more because you've got your cap.
The only reason we ever signed that was to help you guys control yourselves.
But now you have the ultimate form of self control.
So you can forget about that.
I'm willing to forget about entry level caps. But I don't realistically see the NHLPA giving this one back... they might trade some areas of it for others, but the entry level guys are just cannon fodder to the union.
Quote:
Get real. You just saved a bundle on the salary cap.
Unlimited UFA status ... I'll negotiate this far, and this far only.
5 years in the league or 25 years old, which ever comes first. That's the new UFA status.
Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it. Enjoy the rest of your careers in Stockholm and Moscow, guys.
Quote:
Since the league has already achieved infinite parity with your salary cap, we no longer need to have an entry draft.
But we won't get into that now.
We like your idea about the age differences. It's not good for us as a union, but it is good for the game and hockey players in general.
However, we disagree on retention rights.
Here's the rule:
Draft player. Own rights for one year. He then becomes a UFA.
With no entry level cap? No way.
Quote:
Sorry, but in exchange for giving up billions of salary dollars (now and in the future), we desire freedom.
You can have your freedom. Complete freedom to sign anywhere in the world and play. And you'll lose even more billions of salary dollars by pursuing that "freedom" than you would if you agreed to my deal. I didn't know this was about "freedom". I though it was about $. If you're more interested in freedom than in $, then by all means, enjoy your freedom.
Quote:
Let's be honest. You've got your cap.
Who really cares about revenue sharing. We share what we share now.
Agreed on that, anyway. The NHLPA is the side pushing for revenue sharing (maybe along with a small minority of teams). The NHL position favours marginal or no revenue sharing.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 12:32 PM
  #13
Whakahere
Registered User
 
Whakahere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,261
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Whakahere
Well The owners are sticking to players right now but of course the players don't have to stand for it. If they want their Cap, well they can have it.

1) Immediate Rollback:
Following NHL proposal.
< $800,000: no rollback
$800k-$1.5m: 15% rollback
$1.5m-$2m: 20% rollback
$2m-$4m: 24% rollback
$4m-$5m: 30% rollback
>$5m: 35% rollback


2) Arbitration: none. (see point 5)

3) Entry system:
Following NHL and TSN proposal.
Cap base salary at $850k.
Cap signing bonus at 25%.
Cap bonuses at 100% of base salary (i.e. $1.7mil/yr).

4) Qualifying Offers:
no longer in affect (see point 5)

5) Free Agency:
Reduce unrestricted free agency end of contract.
(if you want to keep the player, sign him before the contract ends)

6) Minimum Salary:
Following NHL proposal.
Raise to $300k.

7) Salary Cap at 59% of all hockey related income (NHLPA and NHL controlled)

8) All gate related income must be shared with visiting team 50% - 50%. Gate income and advertising. All tv contracts must be shared 50-50.

I think if the NHL wants a salary cap then the players should get UFA after first contract and all income must be shared. sharing income is a must because that gives small market teams more money to spend. Good hockey markets will still make more money than poor hockey markets. Well managered teams will attact good players.

Whakahere is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 06:56 PM
  #14
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
If there was no arbitration, there would be no incentive for the owners and players to come to terms on their own.
Of course there is. A player's incentive is money. Players like money. If they want money, they have to come to terms.

A GM likes hockey talent, and winning hockey games. If he wants the player to play and accomplish those goals, he has incentive to come to an agreement.

Again, this happens hundreds of times a year without arbitration.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 07:41 PM
  #15
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
Such as? I don't really understand what you mean. It's a concession to allow the NHLPA to station employees in the owners' front offices (one which actually I don't believe the NHL would ever agree to, but which I personally think would help establish trust and partnership). It's a concession to allow 2 player contracts to exist outside of the cap. What's your alternative?.
It's not a concession. It's a fact. If you're going to tie salaries to revenues, the books must be open at all times.
That's obvious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
Who's "we"? The players want arbitration. With or without a cap.
See. You're not willing to open your mind, here.
If you get your cap, you have your cost guaranteed. In return, the players demand freedom. You get your gauanteed lower costs, no matter what.
No matter when anyone ever becomes a free agent, the teams can not spend over the limit, so, really, what's it to you.
Oh, I guess it will be harder to build teams from year to year, never knowing who's gonna be around. But if you lose a player, you go get one.
There will be plenty available. And they'll be cheap. They can't raise your salaries.
Unrestricted Free Agency isn't a financial threat anymore. So there is no need for entry level restrictions and restricted free agency.

And it's not just about players getting freedom. It's about competing with other leagues for young talent.

Quote:
I'm willing to forget about entry level caps. But I don't realistically see the NHLPA giving this one back... they might trade some areas of it for others, but the entry level guys are just cannon fodder to the union.
I'll leave it. Enjoy the rest of your careers in Stockholm and Moscow, guys..[/QUOTE]

That is not what you want.
If you want Stacey Roest playing second line on the Maple Leafs next year, by all means, you go.

Quote:
You can have your freedom. Complete freedom to sign anywhere in the world and play. And you'll lose even more billions of salary dollars by pursuing that "freedom" than you would if you agreed to my deal. I didn't know this was about "freedom". I though it was about $. If you're more interested in freedom than in $, then by all means, enjoy your freedom.
In other words, you're not interested in giving up anything to get your cap.
Fine.
This thing drags on. And on.
Good luck at the labor board when you tell them that the players have agreed to our cost-certainty program, but we didn't settle.


Quote:
Areed on that, anyway. The NHLPA is the side pushing for revenue sharing (maybe along with a small minority of teams). The NHL position favours marginal or no revenue sharing.
Because the rich teams have no interest in giving from their pockets to pull the NHL from "dire straights"
This is about greed, everywhere you look.
But somehow, the players are taking all the blame because people are incapable of thought.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 08:08 PM
  #16
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If you get your cap, you have your cost guaranteed. In return, the players demand freedom. You get your gauanteed lower costs, no matter what.

Unrestricted Free Agency isn't a financial threat anymore. So there is no need for entry level restrictions and restricted free agency.
The only problem with your argument is that the players would never ask for absolute unrestricted free agency. For exactly the reasons you mentioned.

The players aren't stupid. They know it's the limited supply of free agents that leads to the big contracts.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-20-2004, 08:39 PM
  #17
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,349
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
It's not a concession. It's a fact. If you're going to tie salaries to revenues, the books must be open at all times.
That's obvious.
No, its definitely a concession. A sensible, pragmatic concession but a concession none the less. Owners don't want them there, they are giving up their privacy. Players are getting better knowledge. One side is giving up something it doesn't want to, the other side is getting something it wants: its a concession.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 01:14 PM
  #18
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
No, its definitely a concession. A sensible, pragmatic concession but a concession none the less. Owners don't want them there, they are giving up their privacy. Players are getting better knowledge. One side is giving up something it doesn't want to, the other side is getting something it wants: its a concession.
Seriously.
SALARY CAP tied to books >>>>>>>>>>>>> open books

It's unreasonable, even by owners' ludicrous demands, to consider this any sort of concession if they get their cost-certainty based on what books say revenues are.

People are just being pig-headed now.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 01:42 PM
  #19
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
If the NHL wants the same sytem that the NFL has then it needs to adopt the business model as well. In the NFL all revenues that are declared to be shared revenue must receive NFL approval for all contracts. For example if a team wants to have a local broadcast contract, it must receive league approval on the contract and the franchise must prove that it has followed the league policies in reguards to the bidding process, unlike the NHL the NFL does not tolerate nepostism in its contracts process. The league then takes 60% of the contract and puts it into the revenue sharing pool.

In the NFL every ticket, jersey, burger and parking space is assigned a bar code, the reason for this is all this information is not sent to the team, it is directly sent to the league, the league must approve all merchandise that will carry any NFL logo, the NFL then issues a bar code, this keeps tracking of all merchandising revenue. This is not the case in the NHL, teams can market there individual logos at will.

The owners in the NFL do not control there own books the league offices do. At the league offices are a group of auditors that are responsible to the league and the players union, the union at any time can fully review any teams books. Any team caught circumventing the NFL rules is heavily fined, and the fines go directly to the players.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 04:45 PM
  #20
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
The only problem with your argument is that the players would never ask for absolute unrestricted free agency. For exactly the reasons you mentioned.

The players aren't stupid. They know it's the limited supply of free agents that leads to the big contracts.
Dude, it doesn't matter.
The market is capped. There is only so much money to go around.
Players aren't going to care if they get their money when they're 21 or 31.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 09:27 PM
  #21
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,349
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Seriously.
SALARY CAP tied to books >>>>>>>>>>>>> open books

It's unreasonable, even by owners' ludicrous demands, to consider this any sort of concession if they get their cost-certainty based on what books say revenues are.

People are just being pig-headed now.
Just concede its a concession and stop being so pig-headed.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:12 PM
  #22
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
It's not a concession. It's a fact. If you're going to tie salaries to revenues, the books must be open at all times.
That's obvious.
Would the owners step forward and offer that accounting partnership of their own free will? Of course not. They would prefer not to have it. Therefore, regardless of whether it is obvious or not, it would be a concession on their parts.
Quote:
See. You're not willing to open your mind, here.
If you get your cap, you have your cost guaranteed. In return, the players demand freedom. You get your gauanteed lower costs, no matter what.
No matter when anyone ever becomes a free agent, the teams can not spend over the limit, so, really, what's it to you.
Well, what it is to me is not the same as what it is to the owners. Or the players. I'm plowing a moderate path down the middle, littered with my own agenda, and I don't want to see players bouncing around like in MLB. Period. It's my CBA. Not the owners'. Therefore, if you want that much unrestricted free agency, I say take a hike. I'd rather watch replacement players.
Quote:
That is not what you want.
If you want Stacey Roest playing second line on the Maple Leafs next year, by all means, you go.
I'd love to see Stacey Roest playing 2nd line on the Leafs next year... and for the foreseeable future.
Quote:
In other words, you're not interested in giving up anything to get your cap.
<shrug> I'm not really the one giving or taking here. I'm just putting up some concessions that I think need to be made in order to get hockey back on the ice, and keep it on the ice for a good long time. I don't really care if the owners are raking in millions or the players are. I think they both can. With or without a cap. But the prospect of complete hockey armageddon without a cap says to me it should come in. Though not at the expense of destroying certain cherished elements of the game, like roster continuity. If that's the only counter-concession, then I'd support smashing the union. But I don't think it is, by any stretch.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
12-21-2004, 11:59 PM
  #23
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
If the NHL wants the same sytem that the NFL has then it needs to adopt the business model as well.
exactly !!! makes a heck of alot of sense to me and i agree with you 100 %.

also, Ted Saskin is already on record stating that the NHLPA would accept a salary cap system if NHL teams would share 75% of their revenues with each other.

Hawker14 is offline  
Old
12-22-2004, 01:52 AM
  #24
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
Dude, it doesn't matter.
The market is capped. There is only so much money to go around.
Players aren't going to care if they get their money when they're 21 or 31.
But it does matter. There's only so much collectively, but players negotiate *individually*. Individual players will do better by being unrestricted when there's a limited supply and less competition, than they will if everyone is unrestricted.

If everyone was a free agent at the same time, they'd all be closer to the average, instead of some having some huge contracts, and some having some small contracts.

PecaFan 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 01:44 PM.

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.