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
12-09-2004, 08:17 PM
  #1
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 17,991
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
YOUR counter proposal to the NHLPA....

Just curious what everyone would offer in return to the NHLPA....

My thoughts:

A stiffer 'Luxury Tax'

Start it out at 40% at 40 million. 1 Percentage point up for Million over. Period. Also, a much more specific usage of the money. My thoughts: Redistrubted evenly amongst every team meeting a minimum attendence requirement (or something to ensure teams are producing an entertaining product).

Keep the rookie cap reduction. Very good rollback.

Move the overall salary reduction to 20%.

Make the qualifying offer vary from 50% to 150%. Any qualifying offer can be challenged to an arbitration, and if a team can be punished for a 'grievious mis-service' by awarding contracts up to 200% of the original, or in extreme cases, UFA status being granted (for example, a player has a career year and is only offered 75% of the salary they made last year). Any season in which a player misses more than 30% of the games due to injury is guaranteed a 100% qualifying offer.

Move the UFA age down to 29, effective next offseason.

Give the player association the equivilent of 5 team owners votes on any future rule changes/marketing changes/team relocations. The votes should be given allocated by a NHLPA vote, one vote given for each 20% of the NHLPA approves a certain item.

TehDoak is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 08:58 PM
  #2
amazingcrwns
IBelieveThatWeWilWin
 
amazingcrwns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Western MA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,268
vCash: 500
personally I think the luxery tax has to be floating. I'd probably use the numbers as they are now for the next 3.5 seasons (assuming half a season this year). After that set the lowest taxable number at 53-57% of the average revenue generated over the previous 3 seasons. This way if the league is still suffering the cap # is lowered, but if the league is doing great the number can go up rewarding the players.

The system needs to be harsher. Maybe add 10% to each % as it stands. (30% at 40 million the first 3.5 years, 40% at 50 million. After 3.5 years. 30% at 57% of the league's revenues, etc.)

hopefully this would increase the players desire to promote the game. If by doing some TV commercials and some public appearances you help out the nhl you'll get rewarded by it. If the on ice product sucks and the owners are losing more and more money then the luxery tax number reflects the market.

As compensation I'd reduce that rediculous salary rollback. drop it to 10 or 15%. lower the UFA age, and some other minor compensations.

amazingcrwns is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 10:28 PM
  #3
Jag68Sid87
Registered User
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 28,289
vCash: 500
My counter-proposal would be very simple:

- A $35 million salary cap (linked to revenues, so it will go up as revenues go up).

- A one-player exemption for a 'franchise player' tag, which means every team can lock up one player for whatever amount they want.

- Complete revenue-sharing plan amongst all 30 owners.

- Total free agency at the conclusion of each player's entry-level contract (change entry-level from 3 years to 4).

- No rollbacks.

- Eliminate salary arbitration.

- Keep performance bonuses for entry-level players without restrictions (why penalize players for ACTUALLY PERFORMING???).

- Reduction of schedule from 82 to 76 games.

- Approval of "Shanahan Summit" rule recommendations.


Everything else is negotiable.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:34 AM
  #4
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
My counter-proposal would be very simple:

- A $35 million salary cap (linked to revenues, so it will go up as revenues go up).

- A one-player exemption for a 'franchise player' tag, which means every team can lock up one player for whatever amount they want.

- Complete revenue-sharing plan amongst all 30 owners.

- Total free agency at the conclusion of each player's entry-level contract (change entry-level from 3 years to 4).

- No rollbacks.

- Eliminate salary arbitration.

- Keep performance bonuses for entry-level players without restrictions (why penalize players for ACTUALLY PERFORMING???).

- Reduction of schedule from 82 to 76 games.

- Approval of "Shanahan Summit" rule recommendations.


Everything else is negotiable.
Hard cap at $60 million dollars. No one is allowed to go over this figure - period.

Luxury tax: .20 cents on the dollar for every dollar spent over 35 million; . 30 cents on the dollar for every dollar spent over 45 million.

Restrict bonuses to maximum of $1 million dollars per player.
Restrict entry level bonuses to $250,000 per player.

Keep the 24% rollback.

Keep the newly proposed arbitration.

Total free agency after entry level contract.

Maximum of 3 years allowed on all contracts.

Complete revenue sharing between the players and league teams.

Peter is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:49 AM
  #5
Slow Talking Walter
Registered User
 
Slow Talking Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: in the weeds
Country: Canada
Posts: 266
vCash: 500
1.luxury tax: 0.25 over 35mill
0.50 over 40mill
0.75 over 45mill
1.00 over 50mill
hard cap at 60mill

2. Arbitration: needs more teeth for teams. Should be allowed to take a player to arbitration just as often as they can file themselves. 2 way street boys. None of this one time per player for only 1-2 years (where the choice is the players) and not more than twice in a 3 year span.

then propose a other things like 33% roll back, which you can give in on so you get the above 2.

Slow Talking Walter is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:55 AM
  #6
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
My counter-proposal would be very simple:

- A $35 million salary cap (linked to revenues, so it will go up as revenues go up).

- A one-player exemption for a 'franchise player' tag, which means every team can lock up one player for whatever amount they want.

- Complete revenue-sharing plan amongst all 30 owners.

- Total free agency at the conclusion of each player's entry-level contract (change entry-level from 3 years to 4).

- No rollbacks.

- Eliminate salary arbitration.

- Keep performance bonuses for entry-level players without restrictions (why penalize players for ACTUALLY PERFORMING???).

- Reduction of schedule from 82 to 76 games.

- Approval of "Shanahan Summit" rule recommendations.


Everything else is negotiable.
The problem with a proposal like this one is that the NHLPA will say 'no' and there will be no season. Bettman has to take a different approach to this meeting on Tuesday.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 06:23 AM
  #7
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
The problem with a proposal like this one is that the NHLPA will say 'no' and there will be no season. Bettman has to take a different approach to this meeting on Tuesday.
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.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:05 AM
  #8
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,403
vCash: 500
I'm not for a semi-strong luxury tax. Am I alone to think that the NHL should try to find another system to prevent the salary to sky-rocket once again? First of all, a 75 cent luxury tax won't really prevent a team with a 80-million budget (for its payroll) to go above the soft-cap level. It won't do anything, becase those teams will always want to put the best product on the ice to fullfill their market's needs (a huge and strong fan base requires maintenance imo, and they have to do so by putting a strong product on the ice). So here we are, with a luxury tax and teams that will still invest money to fetch a good on-ice product. That's pretty logical imo. That money goes to poorer teams. Well, that's the huge problem with a luxury tax. Not only the rich teams can still spend some money, but that money goes back to poorer teams, who will be able to spend that money on their players. What does that mean? A team like Calgary has a budget of 30 millions as of now. With a luxury tax, they'll be able to have a 35 millions budget for their payroll. Big deal? Yeah... You have increased payrolls all-arround the league. That's what bothers me. The high-budget team won't stop to spend money, thus keeping the market pretty lucrative for the players. Then, you have the poorer teams getting more money to pay their players. What will the players ask for if those teams have better budgets? More money of course. A luxury tax, if it isn't extremely aggressive won't help at all.

The NHL should seek for other tools to keep the salary down. I have nothing against a team with an expensive payroll. If they can affroid it, why not? But they shouldn't make the market go sky high. What's a player's worth on the market is far more important. I think that the NHL should try to make a concil or create a system (with legal twists in order to not be collusion) that will help the teams to keep the salary down. I dunno exactly how they can do it, but they should approve the contract before they're signed. That way, you can keep the salary low. It's all about keeping them at a decent level. Let's say that a team builds an all-star team via draft, trades and free agency (moderately), why couldn't they keep all their stars and have a 70 millions payroll if their players are paid accordingly to the market (all their players paid between 5 mil to 2 mil, remember it's an all-star line-up). They'll sure spend a lot of money, but the market won't be out of whack. Therefore, each team will paid their stars to a similar salary and will be able to KEEP them.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:26 AM
  #9
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
I'm not for a semi-strong luxury tax. Am I alone to think that the NHL should try to find another system to prevent the salary to sky-rocket once again? First of all, a 75 cent luxury tax won't really prevent a team with a 80-million budget (for its payroll) to go above the soft-cap level.

Dont think so? Lets say the that 75 cent tax starts at 40 million dollars. Teams would be over by 40 million. Multiply 40 million at .75 Teams would have to pay 30 million dollars on top of that 80 million dollar payroll. The wings lost 16 million dollars on a 77 million dollar payroll, do you really think Illitch would be willing to lose over 46 million dollars a year? I dont.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:33 AM
  #10
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWI19
Dont think so? Lets say the that 75 cent tax starts at 40 million dollars. Teams would be over by 40 million. Multiply 40 million at .75 Teams would have to pay 30 million dollars on top of that 80 million dollar payroll. The wings lost 16 million dollars on a 77 million dollar payroll, do you really think Illitch would be willing to lose over 46 million dollars a year? I dont.
you're talking about something different. If you spend too much and then loose money, that's bad management. I'm talking about a team that can spend up to 80-millions (it's a fictive case). Everything is possible in buisness, you need luck, vision and money to start with.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:39 AM
  #11
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
you're talking about something different. If you spend too much and then loose money, that's bad management. I'm talking about a team that can spend up to 80-millions (it's a fictive case). Everything is possible in buisness, you need luck, vision and money to start with.

But your not spending 80 million, your spending 110 million with a .75cent tax. How many teams can afford that? Not one that i know of.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:46 AM
  #12
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
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.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:47 AM
  #13
chara
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Luxury tax probably won't do it

Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
you're talking about something different. If you spend too much and then loose money, that's bad management. I'm talking about a team that can spend up to 80-millions (it's a fictive case). Everything is possible in buisness, you need luck, vision and money to start with.
Bettman has said he's not interested in a luxury tax. Why? Because he's has at least 8 owners who want a hard cap. Of the 30 owners, 9 are also NBA owners, who have go to thru a potential hard cap CBA battle in 2 years time. Add the small market teams and you can see why Bettman has almost full owner support to cancel a season or two.

chara is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:47 AM
  #14
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
you're talking about something different. If you spend too much and then loose money, that's bad management. I'm talking about a team that can spend up to 80-millions (it's a fictive case). Everything is possible in buisness, you need luck, vision and money to start with.
$80m become $62m with a 75% luxury tax. That's a lot better than $80m.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:53 AM
  #15
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
$80m become $62m with a 75% luxury tax. That's a lot better than $80m.
good point, but they still spend $62m....

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:56 AM
  #16
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
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.
What makes you think the two aren't linked?

i am dave is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:00 AM
  #17
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitkanenPower
What makes you think the two aren't linked?
The right deal will make sense for the league with or without this season.

Signing the wrong deal just to save this season is suicide.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:05 AM
  #18
pittengineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Hard cap that limits all teams to $60 million.

Luxury tax: 25 % of every dollar spent between $35-40 million. 35% of every dollar spend between $40-45 million. 40% of every dollar over $45 million.

$3 million dollar cap on signing bonuses

Reject the 24% pay cut and lower it to 15%. Its a compromise.

Total free agency after entry level contract.

Maximum of 5 years allowed on all contracts.

Some revenue sharing, but it should not be equal for each team. Though I'm a pittsburgh fan, I dont think New York sould have to teams, like the pens, money from their pocket. The owners should be able to make money off the market they are in. The luxury tax system will bring money in also to the teams that dont have the same market share.

While I still like a hard cap system (success of the NFL), I think this could work.

pittengineer is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:12 AM
  #19
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
Step 1: Take the PA's proposal.
Step 2: 10% Escrow on salaries. If the players salaries exceed a % of revenue, then money is paid from this acount to the owners. Anything left over is given back to the players
Step 3: Since the players like salary rollbacks, simply trigger an automatic reindexation of player salaries to a set % of the previous seasons revenue. So, the FA process proceeds as normal, until Sept. 15 of every year. On Sept 15, the previous years average salary is compared to the previous years reevenue. It is then "re-indexed" to the agreed upon % of revenue. Whatever factor is required to get last years salaries to the agreed upon % is then applied on Sept 15.

So, throwing in some numbers:

Players + Owners agree that 60% of revenue should go to the players.

Year 1: Owners bring in 2 Billion in revenue, Player salaries are 1.3 Billion (65%),

So, Escrow acount of 10% of player salaries contains $130 Million. $100 million goes to the owners, $30 mil to the players.

RFA's and UFA's sign as normal that summer, up until sept 15th.

On Sept 15th, player salaries are all reduced by 7.7% to correct the previous years salaries to 60% of revenue.

Any outstanding QO will also be reduced by this amount to ensure a uniform rollback. A QO will now always be on the table for the player to accept.

This provides cost certainty, and provides the players with essentially the smae market place as now, usning their prefered method of fixing problems (the salary rollback).

Egil is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:24 AM
  #20
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
Step 1: Take the PA's proposal.
Step 2: 10% Escrow on salaries. If the players salaries exceed a % of revenue, then money is paid from this acount to the owners. Anything left over is given back to the players
Step 3: Since the players like salary rollbacks, simply trigger an automatic reindexation of player salaries to a set % of the previous seasons revenue. So, the FA process proceeds as normal, until Sept. 15 of every year. On Sept 15, the previous years average salary is compared to the previous years reevenue. It is then "re-indexed" to the agreed upon % of revenue. Whatever factor is required to get last years salaries to the agreed upon % is then applied on Sept 15.

So, throwing in some numbers:

Players + Owners agree that 60% of revenue should go to the players.

Year 1: Owners bring in 2 Billion in revenue, Player salaries are 1.3 Billion (65%),

So, Escrow acount of 10% of player salaries contains $130 Million. $100 million goes to the owners, $30 mil to the players.

RFA's and UFA's sign as normal that summer, up until sept 15th.

On Sept 15th, player salaries are all reduced by 7.7% to correct the previous years salaries to 60% of revenue.

Any outstanding QO will also be reduced by this amount to ensure a uniform rollback. A QO will now always be on the table for the player to accept.

This provides cost certainty, and provides the players with essentially the smae market place as now, usning their prefered method of fixing problems (the salary rollback).
The PA offer is not concerned with maintaining the current market, but with maintaining the system that ensures long-term salary escalation.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:27 AM
  #21
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
I know Thunder, I don't think the PA would go for this proposal either. But it looks good (heck, you can even undo the QO and arbitration stuff) for the media. As was the PA's proposal. This would be to steal their thunder, as it were.

Egil is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:30 AM
  #22
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag68Vlady27
My counter-proposal would be very simple:

- A $35 million salary cap (linked to revenues, so it will go up as revenues go up).

- No rollbacks.

.
How do you do the first without the second. You'd need major grandfathering clauses.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:49 AM
  #23
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ax˛+bx+c
good point, but they still spend $62m....
actually they still spend $80 just some of it is spent on other teams payrolls Money in the system remains the same.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:18 AM
  #24
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
Just curious what everyone would offer in return to the NHLPA....

My thoughts:

A stiffer 'Luxury Tax'

Start it out at 40% at 40 million. 1 Percentage point up for Million over. Period. Also, a much more specific usage of the money. My thoughts: Redistrubted evenly amongst every team meeting a minimum attendence requirement (or something to ensure teams are producing an entertaining product).

Keep the rookie cap reduction. Very good rollback.

Move the overall salary reduction to 20%.

Make the qualifying offer vary from 50% to 150%. Any qualifying offer can be challenged to an arbitration, and if a team can be punished for a 'grievious mis-service' by awarding contracts up to 200% of the original, or in extreme cases, UFA status being granted (for example, a player has a career year and is only offered 75% of the salary they made last year). Any season in which a player misses more than 30% of the games due to injury is guaranteed a 100% qualifying offer.

Move the UFA age down to 29, effective next offseason.

Give the player association the equivilent of 5 team owners votes on any future rule changes/marketing changes/team relocations. The votes should be given allocated by a NHLPA vote, one vote given for each 20% of the NHLPA approves a certain item.
If I was Bettman {changes into reptilian skin}, I'd counteroffer with the following:

$40 Million Hard Cap

--------------------------
That's all.

We're still not seeing the two sides talk the same language. IMO, if Bettman doesn't move over to a Luxury Tax Proposal, we won't see hockey this year.


Now, if I was me and me was commissioner (excuse grammar),
I'd offer the following:

Luxury Tax:
35-40M- 40 cents
40-45M-75 cents
Over 45- Dollar for Dollar for Dollar
(Phased in over three years, this representing the third year)

75 percent Qualifying offers for RFAs

Owners ability to take player to Arbitration.

I wouldn't change entry rules (why? Because the NHL is going to lose the opportunity to get guys like Ovechkin if they clamp down to hard on rookie salaries. You've already got a luxury tax to control spending. No need to have a system that dictates where you can or can't spend it, as well.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:25 AM
  #25
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
My counter offer....

38.5-45 million .75 cent tax
45-60 million 100% tax
Payrolls capped at 60 million dollars
Player salary capped at 7 million dollars

50% buyout option on existing contracts.

Motown Beatdown 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 03:14 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.