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.

YOUR counter proposal to the NHLPA....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2004, 09:37 AM
  #26
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
THE NHL counter proposal will not be as harsh as their first 6 joke proposals, but it still wont be to the players liking...


Something along the lines of what JW119 posted... in the end , the ufa age will drop a few years, the luxury tax will be around 35% for those above 45-55, then 55% for between 55-65 and 80% or so for 65 plus.

The roll back will be reduced I think if they stiffen the luxury taxes, lets say to 15%. If the owners want to re-set the market (which I think makes most sense) they will have to be more lenient on the luxury tax, for reasons mentioned.

I still cannot understand the people who think making owners more profitable will somehow improve the product.

What is good for the business of hockey is rarely good for the fan.

we should want all teams to have an equal opportunity to win IF They have good management. And any logical person can see that good management does not correlate to spending lots of monye, quite the opposite actually.

There should never be a situation where all 30 t eams are requal. Newsflash: there will still be losing teams under a cpaped system, dummies. The mediocre teams shouldn't be propped up by those who have good management. Instead of bringing others down to your level, why not try to improve to try and get to the level that the winning teams are at? Successful marketing, responsible player budgets, good player development, patience... sure winning takes luck as well, but you dont want the whole basis of winning to come down to the luckiest team, do you?

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:38 AM
  #27
membleypeg
Registered User
 
membleypeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Simple solution

There is no need for any of these complicated financial formula's to end this lockout and bring security to all the NHL teams. The solution is:
Unrestricted Free Agency - 35 years old
This is the only move that needs to be made to insure that the small revenue clubs can hold on to their players during the prime of their careers. Let the high revenue clubs spend all they want on minimal resources.

And to fix the hockey product:
Get rid of the instigator rule
Put the goal line back to where it used to be
Automatic Icing
Get back to one referee
Goalie pad restrictions
Wood sticks only
And absolutely no cheesy shoot outs (worst rule ever)

membleypeg is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:42 AM
  #28
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
This is the only move that needs to be made to insure that the small revenue clubs can hold on to their players during the prime of their careers. Let the high revenue clubs spend all they want on minimal resources.
I would argue that all players but goalies are already peaked or passing their prime at age 31. they are still decent but you can't win by signing all of them (does anyone relaize this yet?)

The UFa age is THE REASON that small market and mid markets can compete with the big spenders because ethe big spenders are such cause they have UFA players.

I have yet to see what signing Washington, St. Louis, or New York has done to affect the competitiveness of the Senators, for example.

BUt you do raise a good point, the whole way to control salaries adequately is to have a high UFA ages (35 is too high, but anything 29-31 is good).

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:48 AM
  #29
IWD
...
 
IWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,040
vCash: 500
-No cap.

-No revenue sharing.

-Immediate removal of 6 franchises.

-Eliminate arbitration.

-Lower the rookie cap, as well as increase the minimum number of years for a rookie cap. Lower the maximum figure for bonuses under the rookie cap as well.

-No guarenteed contracts.

-Raise the age of the draft to 20.

Won't happen (partly for league reasons, such as the age of the draft), but it certainly would make the league better.

IWD is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:34 AM
  #30
Jungle Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Recife, Brazil
Country: Brazil
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
- A one-player exemption for a 'franchise player' tag, which means every team can lock up one player for whatever amount they want.

GREAT IDEA
and this player canīt be acquired via free agency!

Jungle Boy is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:48 AM
  #31
FLYLine24
Registered User
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Why?

Bettman's job is not to save the season. It is to get the deal his employers want for the long-term health of the league.

Bettman's counter-proposal should bear little resemblance to the PA deal, but contain enough of the aspects they liked to show they are bargaining in good faith.
Oh god here comes Thunder once again the biggest pro owner on the site...do you not realize how many teams will NOT be able to recover from a year off? I dont think you do...your just concerned with YOUR team and not looking at the BIG PICTURE.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:50 AM
  #32
FLYLine24
Registered User
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
There are other ways. Tie draft picks to payroll.
go over $34m lose a 4th
go over $38m lose a 3th + 4th
go over $42m lose a 2th + 3rd + 4th
go over $46m lose a 1th + 2th + 3rd + 4th

Add this to a luxury tax as a double whammy and it gets interesting.
Draft picks Should NEVER be tied in with payroll. That is a COMPLETE joke. I think even BETTMAN knows that.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:53 AM
  #33
FLYLine24
Registered User
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungle Boy
GREAT IDEA
and this player canīt be acquired via free agency!
What if the player doesnt want to be TAGGED with his team??????????

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:05 AM
  #34
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,054
vCash: 500
You talk to him, and try to convince him to stick around. Beyond that, you deal him. No system can help you if a player doesn't want to stick around when money isn't an object.

If the player doesn't want to be 'franchised', even after being thrown wads of money, then nothing would have prevented him from leaving town.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:05 AM
  #35
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
1 more thought, the NHL may come back with a phase in approachof the rollback for a larger amount. Say a 10% rollback a year for the next 4 years...

Egil is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:08 AM
  #36
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Oh god here comes Thunder once again the biggest pro owner on the site...do you not realize how many teams will NOT be able to recover from a year off? I dont think you do...your just concerned with YOUR team and not looking at the BIG PICTURE.
Actually MY team is well set no matter what the NHL decides, which is why I find SSF and BRG's rants embarrassing.

I'm just more concerned with the long-term health of the league than the Sens.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:11 AM
  #37
FLYLine24
Registered User
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Actually MY team is well set no matter what the NHL decides, which is why I find SSF and BRG's rants embarrassing.

I'm just more concerned with the long-term health of the league than the Sens.
But how will teams in the US survive a year long or more lockout? Has Baseball ever been the same in toronto and montreal since the lockout in 94? Teams will fold because of this..im sure bettman knows this and its a part of his hidden agenda..but that is just low. Hockey fans will loose there team..and that is a shame..i couldnt imagine what i would do if my team ever had to fold.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:19 AM
  #38
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
- eliminate the roll back completely

- a simple 1:1 luxury tax over 40 mil with equal distribution to all teams below the 40 mil threshold and above the salary floor - up to a max of 10 mil per team or the equivelant 40 mil threshold - any additional revenue split equally among CDN/US dollar equalization fund, NHLPA, future arena construction

- if a player is traded and the team trading the player is picking up a portion of the players remaining salary, then that portion of the salary isn't counted towards the the threshold

- Salary floor of 26 mil -anyteam spending less must contribute the difference to the league which will be split equally among CDN/US dollar equalization fund, NHLPA, future arena construction

- Rookie cap at 850k, maximum 500 k combined signing bonus, 500 k performance bonus's that automaitically kick in at NHL/NHLPA negotiated setpoints

- Baseball style arbitration

- Salary is prorated over 98 games (instead of the 82 game regular season schedule) - it would automatically tie player salaries to team success

- UFA status remains at 31

- Qualifying offers drop to min 75% up to league average

- minimum player salary increases to 250k (up from approx 190k)

- rookie contracts span 4 years (up from the current 3)

- drop dead signing date for contracts - if your not signed by end of training camp then you can't sign for the season


Last edited by copperandblue: 12-10-2004 at 11:35 AM.
copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:23 AM
  #39
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Actually MY team is well set no matter what the NHL decides, which is why I find SSF and BRG's rants embarrassing.
How can the Sens be well -set under a hard cap /low UFA age environment? Thats what the owners are arguing for... and teh Sens would be destroyed.


Wake up and face reality sometime, OK?

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:51 AM
  #40
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
I would have a 50 million salary ceiling with full revenue sharing and a cap beginning at 40 million that includes a dollar for dollar match and draft pick compensation that is adjustable depending on how the product does financially.

It's time for fans in big markets to ackowledge that Nashville and Carolina or other teams you complain must be contracted for your benefit are not going anywhere, big market owners losing revenue drove the product into the ground and cannot be trusted.

These newer markets must have a level playing field financially for them to have a competitive chance and this business needs it.

How many contracts will be expired within two years under the NHLPA offer? I would guess most, these players signed contracts and deserve their money. I'm sure most owners will be happy to honor exsisting contract and get a system that Bettman wants.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:52 AM
  #41
gerbilanium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Counter with a 10% increase to all salaries plus a 150% tax on salaries over $44 million, just to show how meaningless the rollback is to the real problem.

gerbilanium is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:52 PM
  #42
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
I find it odd that all your counter proposals are within the confines of the NHLPA's proposal. If I'm an owner (and I wish I was), I'm not limiting myself to that !
  • 30% roll back on salary
  • Non Linear Lux Tax (see my other thread)
  • No more signing bonus of any kind
  • Rooky salary cap set at 500k

With this counter proposal, players need to realize a huge concession is made : "No more salary cap". But such a concession is costly. Clearly the 24% rollback is smoke and mirrors and will be bargained down with concessions. That's why I raise it to 30%, to see the NHLPA's true colors. Without "absolute" cost certainty I want relative cost certainty implemented in the form of a Non Linear Lux Tax. The rest are bargaining chips.

Orange is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:47 AM
  #43
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
SOFT cap at 40 million dollers.

no tax for payrolls between 40-45 million
35% tax for payrolls between 45-50 million
100%tax for payrolls between 50-55 million
120%tax for pay rolls between 55-65 million
150% tax over 65 million

A team can only go over the cap to sign a player if he has been with the team for an entire year and a player is not eligible to be traded untill after he is a year removed from signing a contract.

I'd like to keep the tax reletivly low in the 40-50 million range so that teams can go over the soft cap threshhold to sign they're own players and not be penilized too harshly. Of course, this has to be kept with in reason, so once you go over 50 million the penalties get harsher.

this, in effect, create's two major thresholds: 40 million over which you can go to sign your own players, but only have to pay a 2-3 million doller luxery tax to do so, and 50 million over which you would have to pay a 100% tax on Everything over 40 million, not just over 50.

edit - I've fiddled with the tax numbers a bit.


Last edited by xander: 12-11-2004 at 04:03 AM.
xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:25 AM
  #44
justicex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue

- Salary is prorated over 98 games (instead of the 82 game regular season schedule) - it would automatically tie player salaries to team success
Thats one of the most brillant idea I have seen!

Well 98 is maybe a bit too much, but you could go with like 90 games or some ladder system, like an increasing or decreasing $ per playoff game.

But its very nice, it will push up each players to play even harder!

justicex is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:19 AM
  #45
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange
I find it odd that all your counter proposals are within the confines of the NHLPA's proposal. If I'm an owner (and I wish I was), I'm not limiting myself to that !
  • 30% roll back on salary
  • Non Linear Lux Tax (see my other thread)
  • No more signing bonus of any kind
  • Rooky salary cap set at 500k

With this counter proposal, players need to realize a huge concession is made : "No more salary cap". But such a concession is costly. Clearly the 24% rollback is smoke and mirrors and will be bargained down with concessions. That's why I raise it to 30%, to see the NHLPA's true colors. Without "absolute" cost certainty I want relative cost certainty implemented in the form of a Non Linear Lux Tax. The rest are bargaining chips.
Good point about the NHLPA's "true colors". If I were Bettman, I would counter with two proposals on Tuesday:

Proposal 1: 40% rollback in salaries, plus other concessions. No hard cap. Stronger luxury tax than that proposed by Goodenow.

Proposal 2: $40 million hard cap, plus other concessions (perhaps less than Proposal 1). No rollbacks.

Watch the NHLPA descend into civil war.

Scheme is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 07:27 AM
  #46
coachbob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ONTARIO
Posts: 890
vCash: 500
How about this?

Players take the 24% rollback and total salary of all players this season 2004-2005 is the maximum amount the league will pay over the next few years (length of new agreement). If the total salaries in the following years are above that threshold, prorated cuts are taken by players across the league to maintain the salary level. Graduated luxury tax is in place to penalize big spenders. Luxury tax proceeds are split 50/50 amongst players fund and lower salaried teams.
Example- if player salaries total 1 billion dollars this season after a rollback, and 1.05 billion next year, a 5% rollback would be in effect for next year. The luxury tax penalty would be graduated-and let's say the luxury tax proceeds amounted to 30 million. The NHLPA would get half to disperse it as they wish and the NHL could disperse their half as wished.
This would guarantee the NHL that salary threshold is controlled. Provisions could be made linked to ticket price increases and tv deal increases, so that when the league succeeds - players salary thresholds could rise.
Any thoughts?

coachbob is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 07:38 AM
  #47
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 44,026
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
What if the player doesnt want to be TAGGED with his team??????????
Well then he isn't a franchise player. I've suggested this several times here before, but these franchise players should be players that have played atleast 8 consecutive seasons for the team that drafted them or 10 consecutive seasons. I'd also expand it include 3 players instead of one, maybe one for each position or e.g. 2 forwards and a goalie (Atlanta could in the future include Ilja, Danny and Kari).

Jussi is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 08:26 AM
  #48
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,988
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Draft picks Should NEVER be tied in with payroll. That is a COMPLETE joke. I think even BETTMAN knows that.

Why is it a joke. Think of it as reverse compensatory picks.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 08:41 AM
  #49
jratelle19
Registered User
 
jratelle19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
I would accept the luxury tax system, but I would lower the first threshold to $35 million. The tax from $35-40 mil would be 50%, from $40-50 mil would be 75%, $50-60 mil would be 100% and anything above $60 mil would be a 150% tax. These would be for the first offense with the tax levels increasing 5% across the board for each repeated offense.

The revenues from the taxes would be distributed among teams who have a salary at or below the $35 million threshold. However, there would be a payroll minimum for those teams of $25 million, so that they don't just look to pocket all the revenues given to them.

The rookie maximum is fine in the PA proposal, but I would lower the bonus maximum to $300,000.

Arbitration would be two-way as proposed by the PA.

As concessions towards the PA to make up for the higher tax demands stated above, I would make the payroll cut 18% instead of the proposed 24% and the UFA age would be lowered to 28 or 8 years in the NHL. A year in the NHL would be considered a minimum of 50 NHL games played in the season, unless the games were missed due to injury.

My last concession would be Gary Bettman's resignation and the hiring of Scotty Bowman as commissioner.

jratelle19 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:32 AM
  #50
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jratelle19
My last concession would be Gary Bettman's resignation and the hiring of Scotty Bowman as commissioner.
I, would be owner, want Brian Burke !

Orange 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 03:53 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. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.