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.

No Hard Cap

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 12:45 PM
  #1
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
No Hard Cap

I am certain that the NHL won't propose a hard cap in their counter-proposal here's why? By offering a 24% rollback on their salaries the players have demonstrate that they are willing to nogociate in good faith. The NHL on the other hand have not in my opinion shown the same willingness to nogociate in good faith until now. If they come back tuesday with a hard cap knowing full well in advance that it will be rejected, how can they say they are negociating in good faith? Why do you think the NHLPA luxury tax is only 20% because it's something that is negociable. Do you really think the owners want to give back the 24% rollbacks? Absoluteny not! Bettman said that the rollback was essential to be able to implement a new system and that new system will be a stiffer luxury tax.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:47 PM
  #2
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,783
vCash: 500
obviouslly they low balled at 24... they don't wanna offer 50 then have the owners come back at 75

joepeps is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:51 PM
  #3
coyotechrisz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Klagenfurt, Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to coyotechrisz
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
I am certain that the NHL won't propose a hard cap in their counter-proposal here's why? By offering a 24% rollback on their salaries the players have demonstrate that they are willing to nogociate in good faith. The NHL on the other hand have not in my opinion shown the same willingness to nogociate in good faith until now. If they come back tuesday with a hard cap knowing full well in advance that it will be rejected, how can they say they are negociating in good faith? Why do you think the NHLPA luxury tax is only 20% because it's something that is negociable. Do you really think the owners want to give back the 24% rollbacks? Absoluteny not! Bettman said that the rollback was essential to be able to implement a new system and that new system will be a stiffer luxury tax.
Thinking of that too.. makes me feel a little optimistic...

coyotechrisz is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:52 PM
  #4
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepeps
obviouslly they low balled at 24... they don't wanna offer 50 then have the owners come back at 75
I am not talking about the rollback. IMO the rollback is non negociable. I was talking about the 20% luxury tax I think that's somethiung that the NHLPA is willing to nogociate.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:00 PM
  #5
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
The NHL wants a salary reduction from the current average salary of $1.8 mil to $1.3. That's 38%. The union has offered a 24% reduction. I think that puts them solidly at the bargaining table and an impasse out of reach unless the follow-up details get stuck in the mud. But the devil will be in the details. Can they craft an agreement regarding arbitration, bonuses, a luxury tax, etc. that will garuntee as much as a cap would, that salaries won't be right where they are now in 2-5 years? From here on out that shouldn't be impossible. I think the NHL should up the ante just a tad and ask for a 28-30% reduction and a buy-out clause for garunteed contracts.

Phase two now needs to be initiated and that is the on-ice product needs a roll-back as well! Does anyone know what happened at Shannahan's round-table on in-game rules changes?

If I was a player in Europe, I would start packing my bags...now, where is my old moth-balled Dale Hunter jersey?
-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:09 PM
  #6
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
The NHL wants a salary reduction from the current average salary of $1.8 mil to $1.3. That's 38%. The union has offered a 24% reduction. I think that puts them solidly at the bargaining table and an impasse out of reach unless the follow-up details get stuck in the mud. But the devil will be in the details. Can they craft an agreement regarding arbitration, bonuses, a luxury tax, etc. that will garuntee as much as a cap would, that salaries won't be right where they are now in 2-5 years? From here on out that shouldn't be impossible. I think the NHL should up the ante just a tad and ask for a 28-30% reduction and a buy-out clause for garunteed contracts.

Phase two now needs to be initiated and that is the on-ice product needs a roll-back as well! Does anyone know what happened at Shannahan's round-table on in-game rules changes?

If I was a player in Europe, I would start packing my bags...now, where is my old moth-balled Dale Hunter jersey?
-HckyFght!
Absotlutely, there's a deal to be made here. I think that both side have to the realization tha cancelling the entire season would be catastrophic!!!

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:33 PM
  #7
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
You're forgetting one thing...a rollback is one-time cut in salaries, it's not a SYSTEM which prevents salaries from escalating!

20% luxury tax is a joke and PA knows it.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:50 PM
  #8
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
You're forgetting one thing...a rollback is one-time cut in salaries, it's not a SYSTEM which prevents salaries from escalating!

20% luxury tax is a joke and PA knows it.
Yes it is a joke but I am sure that the NHLPA and the NHL will negociate a higher rate. No problem

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:03 PM
  #9
fcbarcelona
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,398
vCash: 500
negotiate, not nogociate.

fcbarcelona is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:09 PM
  #10
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
negotiate, not nogociate.
merci mousieur le professeur!!!!

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:12 PM
  #11
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
I am certain that the NHL won't propose a hard cap in their counter-proposal here's why? By offering a 24% rollback on their salaries the players have demonstrate that they are willing to nogociate in good faith. The NHL on the other hand have not in my opinion shown the same willingness to nogociate in good faith until now. If they come back tuesday with a hard cap knowing full well in advance that it will be rejected, how can they say they are negociating in good faith? Why do you think the NHLPA luxury tax is only 20% because it's something that is negociable. Do you really think the owners want to give back the 24% rollbacks? Absoluteny not! Bettman said that the rollback was essential to be able to implement a new system and that new system will be a stiffer luxury tax.
The Union in my mind offered the 24% one time rollback, simply because as Brian Burke said, to keep the same system they have right now. Take the hit at the beginning, and have the same market like system in a year or two. The Union knows they have it way too good right now, hence the big roll back, which caught every one off-guard; now everyone believes that the Union is willing to bargain in good faith. Whereas I see it completely differently. They want to keep the system they have right now, and they're willing to do anything to do it.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:26 PM
  #12
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
The Union in my mind offered the 24% one time rollback, simply because as Brian Burke said, to keep the same system they have right now. Take the hit at the beginning, and have the same market like system in a year or two. The Union knows they have it way too good right now, hence the big roll back, which caught every one off-guard; now everyone believes that the Union is willing to bargain in good faith. Whereas I see it completely differently. They want to keep the system they have right now, and they're willing to do anything to do it.
I don't care about why the two side are willing to compromise. Just make a deal that BOTH side can live with. The only thing that needs to be adjusted in the NHLPA proposal is the luxury tax? What they should do is tax every club that as a payroll over $40 millions. Let say a team as a $60 millions payroll you take 60% of that payroll ($36M) add a 25% tax, that club as to pay a $9 millions. So in reality it has a payroll of $69M.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:40 PM
  #13
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
I don't care about why the two side are willing to compromise. Just make a deal that BOTH side can live with. The only thing that needs to be adjusted in the NHLPA proposal is the luxury tax? What they should do is tax every club that as a payroll over $40 millions. Let say a team as a $60 millions payroll you take 60% of that payroll ($36M) add a 25% tax, that club as to pay a $9 millions. So in reality it has a payroll of $69M.
I know for a fact, the NHL doesn't want any salaries anywhere near 60 million dollars. That right there is the biggest problem. You hear cost certainty been thrown around constantly by Gary Bettman, it won't change until he gets what he wants. I'm just hoping he does it the right way and doesn't go into Tuesday with a cap proposal, if he does, the NHLPA will walk out and there will be no season.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:47 PM
  #14
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
I know for a fact, the NHL doesn't want any salaries anywhere near 60 million dollars. That right there is the biggest problem. You hear cost certainty been thrown around constantly by Gary Bettman, it won't change until he gets what he wants. I'm just hoping he does it the right way and doesn't go into Tuesday with a cap proposal, if he does, the NHLPA will walk out and there will be no season.
It's Bettman's job right now to come up with a economic system that will give the players their free market and at the same time will prevent the big markets to spend like crazy. There's got to be a way for god sake!!! to agree on something that both side are happy with.

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:48 PM
  #15
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
theres gonna be a cap come hell or high water .

the owners are tired of the tail wagging the dog

its their toy box

Isles72 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:49 PM
  #16
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
The NHL wants a salary reduction from the current average salary of $1.8 mil to $1.3. That's 38%. -HckyFght!
You might want to check your math before posting.

(Just a suggestion)

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:50 PM
  #17
SPARTAKUS*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hearst
Country: Canada
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles72
theres gonna be a cap come hell or high water .

the owners are tired of the tail wagging the dog

its their toy box
How are they going to accomplish that without the players approval?????

SPARTAKUS* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:51 PM
  #18
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
It's Bettman's job right now to come up with a economic system that will give the players their free market and at the same time will prevent the big markets to spend like crazy. There's got to be a way for god sake!!! to agree on something that both side are happy with.
The only way I see this finishing is if the NHLPA believes the proposal (whenever that is) is a luxery tax, and the NHL believes it's a cap. That's the only way it's going to get resolved. I have a very hard time believing that the NHLPA is going to give in fully to a hard cap at around 40 million. The only way that is happening is if there's actually a God and he provides us with a miracle.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:51 PM
  #19
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
people keep saying that the NHLPA made considerable consesions, but all they did is alter the numbers within the frame work of a luxer tax proposal, which was the framework they've been pushing for all along. The league could come back with an offer of a 40 million doller hard cap and a 24% salary increase and it would essentially be making the same concesions that the players did.

for the record, I'm not pro-owner or pro player. I don't want a hard cap, and I'd like to see the owners come back with a proposal of either a soft cap or a high luxery tax (100%) and work within the parameters of this deal.

The main issue in this stand off is ideology, not numbers, the NHLPA improved they're numbers, but they didn't change they're ideology, which is what everyone seems to be asking the owners to do.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:58 PM
  #20
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTTSENS
How are they going to accomplish that without the players approval?????
It wont be pretty

Isles72 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:04 PM
  #21
Isles72
Registered User
 
Isles72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
people keep saying that the NHLPA made considerable consesions, but all they did is alter the numbers within the frame work of a luxer tax proposal, which was the framework they've been pushing for all along. The league could come back with an offer of a 40 million doller hard cap and a 24% salary increase and it would essentially be making the same concesions that the players did.

for the record, I'm not pro-owner or pro player. I don't want a hard cap, and I'd like to see the owners come back with a proposal of either a soft cap or a high luxery tax (100%) and work within the parameters of this deal.

The main issue in this stand off is ideology, not numbers, the NHLPA improved they're numbers, but they didn't change they're ideology, which is what everyone seems to be asking the owners to do.
good post .
I agree that something could be done to make the players proposal work .However , the luxury tax penalties that the nhl would want would be laughed at by the nhlpa because they will say ''its so stiff ,it may as well be a cap''

we have to hope that middle ground can be found on the luxury tax rates , otherwise forget it

Isles72 is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:38 PM
  #22
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
You're forgetting one thing...a rollback is one-time cut in salaries, it's not a SYSTEM which prevents salaries from escalating!
Can you imagine that?! Players actually would like the future ability to earn more money, as opposed to staying at the same salary level! The gall they have!

One wonders if some here have ever held a job, and if they have, if they would like a cap on their earning ability.

(And don't come back with "they make a lot more money than us, so they should be willing to...ya-da, ya-da." Its all relative. Just because Mats Sundin earns a lot more than Joe Fan does not mean he should have to give up his basic free-market earning power.)

Regardless of whether one favors a strict luxury tax (I do) or a hardcap ( ), workers should always have the right to earn to their potential. Whether they are making $10 an hour or $25,000 a game.


Last edited by Trottier: 12-11-2004 at 03:45 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:56 PM
  #23
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
if your employer needs to cap your earning potential to ensure the saftey of your job then it's in your best interest to do that, especially if your already making an extradonary amout of money.

Now i'm not sure if the NHL does need to cap earning power to ensure job security, but flatly refusing to do so when it might meen the differance between keeping or loosing your job then your shooting yourself in the foot by not doing so.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:14 PM
  #24
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,348
vCash: 500
I think there is WAY too much wishful thinking going in this thread. The NHL has said they need it fixed right. they need cost certainty and are willing to wait a season or two for it. the PA makes a proposal that is based on a one time salary give back and you are convinced that the league will cave in.

that 24% savings is misdirection. it wont last. sergei gonchar's contract runs out after this season. is there anyone here that believes that gonchar as a ufa will get $3.75m or less?? there is no chance of that happening.

the 24% applies to currently signed contracts. new contracts are another story and IMO you will see continued growth in prices of players with those new contracts.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:19 PM
  #25
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 43,932
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
If I was a player in Europe, I would start packing my bags...
-HckyFght!
Well John Madden already did, apparently because he thinks the NHL will start in January. He left IFK Helsinki today when they still had one more game before the Christmas break.

Jussi 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 06:01 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.