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, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

The NHLPA CBA proposal....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 06:59 PM
  #1
TehDoak
I Like Eich
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 20,236
vCash: 903
The NHLPA CBA proposal....

The NHL is going to have a hard time turning it down:

#1. 24% Total Salary Rollback.
#2. Drastic Change in Qualifying Offer System:
-A 100% Qualifying offer is still needed to keep a players rights, but instead of it being at average, it is at 1.0 million. This is huge. The guaranteed 10% raise was killing alot of teams every season.
-The team also has the ability to, once in a players career, force a player to go to arbitration and suggest that they are making way too much money and try and get a salary rollback.
#3. A more advanced revenue sharing system where the top 10 teams each contribute a 'share' to go to the lower revenue teams who sell at least 80% of the seats.
#4. A DRASTIC cutback in the entry level salary. Down from 1.2 million to .85 million and the max signing bonus down to .212 million.
#5. Payroll taxes: with the 24% rollback, only 3 NHL teams have salaries over 45 million. The tax increases steadily over the next 3 seasons:

04-05: 45 million 20%, 50 million 50%, 60 million 60%
05-06: 45 million 25%, 50 million 55%, 60 million 65%
06-07: 45 million 30%, 50 million 60%, 60 million 70%

The tax in put into a 'discretionary fund' which is controlled by both the NHL and NHLPA.

#6. A joint NHLPA/NHL group which looks into jointly beneficial things, such as the quality of the game and its marketing, etc.

After looking through the majority of the NHLPA proposal, my only major questions come from revenue sharing, it isn't exactly clear what their plan is here. Another interesting thing here: NO mention of moving back the UFA age from 31. Overall, all give from the players, no real demands, except they be given a say in marketing and new rule changes. After looking it over, very impressed at the players union concessions. Looks like we're gonna have a hockey season kids

TehDoak is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:00 PM
  #2
Fire Sather
4 MORE YEARS!
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 22,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
I'm confident in the fact that this is a good begining to the new era of the NHL.

The building blocks have been set, and I'm also confident in the fact that the rest will be built next week.

Fire Sather is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:02 PM
  #3
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
the owners should take this offer and run. i bet the owners didn't expect this offer to be this good.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:05 PM
  #4
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
man what a deal!!!! I was pro owners but not anymore...there will be hockey this season no way the owners can turn this proposal down are you kidding me.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:06 PM
  #5
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,302
vCash: 50
This'll probably be a lot easier for them to turn down than you think, due mostly to a pretty weak luxury tax.

Seachd is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:11 PM
  #6
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
This'll probably be a lot easier for them to turn down than you think, due mostly to a pretty weak luxury tax.
are you crazy!!! let's say you have a business and your employees offer you a 24% salary reduction you wouldn't take it c'mon

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:11 PM
  #7
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
man what a deal!!!! I was pro owners but not anymore...there will be hockey this season no way the owners can turn this proposal down are you kidding me.
The luxury tax is a joke and still leaves teh door open for spending. Why do you thing Goodenow doesn't want a hard cap, a stiff luxury tax, or cost-certainty. Well without those, it leaves the door open for the players salaries to get back to where they were before the roll-back. Institute any of these, and this will not happen.

Although I do think that NHLPA did put up a proposal to bargain from. Which is good enough for me.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:13 PM
  #8
Riggins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,370
vCash: 500
A lot of you are getting fooled by that one time 24% rollback.

The 20 cent tax on 45 million is absurd. That won't prevent anything.

Riggins is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:14 PM
  #9
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
The luxury tax is a joke and still leaves teh door open for spending. Why do you thing Goodenow doesn't want a hard cap, a stiff luxury tax, or cost-certainty. Well without those, it leaves the door open for the players salaries to get back to where they were before the roll-back. Institute any of these, and this will not happen.

Although I do think that NHLPA did put up a proposal to bargain from. Which is good enough for me.
the hell with hard cap!! it's the job of the gm to manage to set his own cap...not the players. with this deal ther's no way a team shouldn't be able to be competitive and make a profit

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:15 PM
  #10
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 14,302
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
are you crazy!!! let's say you have a business and your employees offer you a 24% salary reduction you wouldn't take it c'mon
If salaries go back up 40% in the next 3 years, what good does it do?

Seachd is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:15 PM
  #11
ZombieMatt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
I suspect that the owners are going to counter with a luxury tax next week that is closer to 45 cents on 40 million dollars.

Overall, this is an EXTREMELY good start to getting talks underway once again.

ZombieMatt is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:16 PM
  #12
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,816
vCash: 500
For all you poor pro-owner people:

Please list one thing that the owners have conceeded.

Until then, you cannot complain about ANY concessions on the players part (and in fact there are plenty).

The luxury tax number will be adjusted, for sure, but come on. Wake up and face reality. Thank God I was never a pro-owner, it just isn't logical!


The players have helped out the owners in TONS of ways, without asking much in return, just to retain the extremely logical market conditions that are still underlying. Dont prevent an owner from keeping a guy they grow and develop if they are willing to pay them the market rate. Dont force the owner and player to part ways because of an idiotic artificial barrier created to help the poorly managed and mediocre teams.


porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:16 PM
  #13
dem
Registered User
 
dem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
That tax is way off from the 75% we've been hearing.

Quite frankly this isnt even close to enough imo...
Rollback is stupid

dem is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:18 PM
  #14
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
This'll probably be a lot easier for them to turn down than you think, due mostly to a pretty weak luxury tax.
I agree, that luxury tax has to get A LOT stiffer.

I am also pro-owner but I will give the NHLPA credit, this a solid offer to finally get these negotiations rolling.

*A small detail in their proposal, but I really like the NHLPA's point that they want to be involved in the marketing and quality of the sport. I think they are finally realizing that it benefits all involved to work together to grow this game - instead of against each other.

X0ssbar is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:19 PM
  #15
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
If salaries go back up 40% in the next 3 years, what good does it do?
with the players proposal there's no way salary will go up by 40%. now gm have a lot of tools to work with to manage their team and keep salaries from going of the chart.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:19 PM
  #16
Go Flames Go*
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
People need to understand once current contracts run out after the 24% deflator as Goodenow calls it, your back in the same situation in another 5-10 years, and thats not the right way to fix this problem. You have to have a assurance that there is a system in place that will keep things running smooth.

This deal will not be rejected, but will not be accepted. I will still suppour the NHL 100% if they reject this stupid offer. I read it over in NHLPA.COM and this **** is weak. 1.608 million created from tax money under current contracts after the 24% deflator. Theres 235 pages I will not read all of it, but this has some components that sound good and some that just outright disrespectful. .20 on 45 million will not cause teams to be scared, .60 on 60 million is just ouright nasty.

Trade the 24% deflator to 15%, and UFA to age 29 in exchange for a soft cap with linkage. Harder tax rates, that start at dollar for dollar.

This proposal just goes to show us there will be no NHL for a very very long time.

Go Flames Go* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:20 PM
  #17
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 806
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
the hell with hard cap!! it's the job of the gm to manage to set his own cap...not the players. with this deal ther's no way a team shouldn't be able to be competitive and make a profit
The system has caused the problems. Owners in one market do things that suit their teams but affect others through arbitration, negotiations, and qualifying offers. The rolled back salaries put through this system again will climb back up within two to three years. The roll back is a good start, but it will not prevent salaries staying down. There is a reason the owners would give the whole roll-back back to the players in turn for the proper systemic fix. That is because the proper systemic fixes will provide way more stability then any one-time roll back ever could.

kerrly is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:22 PM
  #18
Ismellofhockey
Registered User
 
Ismellofhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
04-05: 45 million 20%, 50 million 50%, 60 million 60%
05-06: 45 million 25%, 50 million 55%, 60 million 65%
06-07: 45 million 30%, 50 million 60%, 60 million 70%
That is significant and much more satisfactory, it not only gives big market teams time to adjust it also creates a 30%, 60%, 70% threshold which is a good starting base for negotiations.
Of course it's still much too low but that can be altered.

The adjustment of the qualifying offer is a very good step forward.

If all this is true, then there is definitely something to work with here.

Ismellofhockey is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:23 PM
  #19
Iceman23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
For all you poor pro-owner people:

Please list one thing that the owners have conceeded.

Until then, you cannot complain about ANY concessions on the players part (and in fact there are plenty).

The luxury tax number will be adjusted, for sure, but come on. Wake up and face reality. Thank God I was never a pro-owner, it just isn't logical!


The players have helped out the owners in TONS of ways, without asking much in return, just to retain the extremely logical market conditions that are still underlying. Dont prevent an owner from keeping a guy they grow and develop if they are willing to pay them the market rate. Dont force the owner and player to part ways because of an idiotic artificial barrier created to help the poorly managed and mediocre teams.

The owners have conceded plenty. As in billions of dollars to the players in salary over the last decade. Some of the owners may not be the most likeable people, but the fact remains that the owners are putting up the money to run these teams and thus deserve to have a reasonable return on their money. The "luxury tax" given in the proposal is a start no doubt. But this 24% one time rollback is essentially useless. Next year, everyone still under contract has their salary jump right back to where it was (or higher). Unless the rollback included future years in preexisting contracts, they'd be giving the owners a chance to be profitable in the first year of the CBA. The owners have to do this right, or salaries will continue to escalate.

Iceman23 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:24 PM
  #20
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,816
vCash: 500
lol

Quote:
This proposal just goes to show us there will be no NHL for a very very long time.
This post shows us that you still do not understand the situation, and never have.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:25 PM
  #21
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
I think this is a good offer by the PA, with only one two problems: brutal luxury tax and the rollback. The 24% rollback sounds good, but without an adaquet luxury tax nothing is preventing the players from making that back in the next few years. If the players scrapped the idea of a rollback and just put all those "concessions" into a stiff luxury tax this thing would be solved very quickly.

Chelios is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:25 PM
  #22
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dem
That tax is way off from the 75% we've been hearing.

Quite frankly this isnt even close to enough imo...
Rollback is stupid
rollback stupid!!!! would you take a 24% cut. let's see if a players makes 5M/season for 3 years = that's 3.6M. nowhe's contract is worth 11.4M

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:25 PM
  #23
NJD Jester
Registered User
 
NJD Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 960
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to NJD Jester
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
For all you poor pro-owner people:

Please list one thing that the owners have conceeded.
Yeah, besides decades of monster salaries compared to little revenue, an agent-friendly arbitration system and guarenteed contracts, the owners really haven't given the players anything, have they?

<JESTER>

NJD Jester is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:27 PM
  #24
VernonForrest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
I think its a good start, but if I were the owners I would propose a 100% tax past 40 million and a 200% tax past 50 million. This would be a pretty strict tax but it sure would beat the hard cap the owners really want.

VernonForrest is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 07:28 PM
  #25
dem
Registered User
 
dem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
rollback stupid!!!! would you take a 24% cut. let's see if a players makes 5M/season for 3 years = that's 3.6M. nowhe's contract is worth 11.4M
The problem is they'll take their 24% cut on this contract.. and then in 3 years when their contract is up they'll be asking for 5 million again.

Its nothing but a bandaid

dem 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 02:03 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.