HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

NHL Should Drop Cap & Negotiate 1 Time

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2004, 02:23 PM
  #1
EricBowser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 174
vCash: 500
NHL Should Drop Cap & Negotiate 1 Time

The NHL has a great opportunity to really back the NHLPA into a corner by offering a counter-proposal based off the framework of last week's NHLPA ten-tab binder for a one-time offer on the frame work of their proposal.

If they refuse to accept the six main points, then their immediate counter-proposal will be the prior offers of a hard salary cap, etc and announcement that impasse might be the only way to save the league since the players refuse to accept any sort of meaningful negotiation in the framework of a long-term solution, even after they tried to use a luxury tax system of the NHLPA's own choice.

Here's the negotiated proposal, I'd like to see by the NHL.

1. Accept the 24% rollback for all signed contracts

2. Luxury Tax with teeth
- NHLPA proposed too high of a threshold and a weak penalty for going over
----NHL should propose the following luxury tax
--------- less than $31 million is non-taxed
--------- $31,000,001 to $39,999,999 = $1 tax
--------- $40,000,000 to $49,999,999 = $2 tax
--------- $50,000,000 to $59,999,999 = $3 tax
--------- $60,000,000 to $69,999,999 = $4 tax
--------- $70,000,000 and beyond is == $5 tax

3. Entry-Level Contracts
- NHLPA proposed increasing the length to four years and capping the base salary, annual signing bonus, and tye A bonus
----- NHL should propose the following
----------- accept the length of the ELC as 4-years
----------- accept the maximum annual base salary as $850,000
----------- accept the maximum annual signing bonus as $212,500
----------- accept the maximum annual Type A performance bonus as $850,000
----------- cap the annual Type B performance bonus as $850,000
----------- under the NHLPA proposal players could get $1,912,500 plus unlimited Type B
----------- under the NHL proposal players could get $2,762,500

4. Qualifying Offer
- NHLPA proposal did little to save owners from keeping current salaries for players undeserving of a raise
------- NHL should propose the following QO system
----------- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 75% QO's
----------- players making less than $660,000 must receive 85% QO's
----------- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 80% QO's

5. Arbitration
- NHLPA proposal limits a team to file once per year, no more than twice in 3-years, and player can only be taken once
-------NHL should propose the following arbitration
--------- Any player making over $1.3 million can be subjected to arbitration and no more than three times in his career
--------- Player no longer selects the term, all awards will be based on 1-year contracts
--------- Team can take two players to arbitration per year, no limitation for 3-year period like NHLPA
--------- A 3-judge panel will choose between the team or player salary request
--------- Team must offer QO of 90% to elect arbitration but can request a salary of their choosing

6. Revenue-Sharing
- NHLPA has proposed sharing $189 million but wants more
----- NHL has been very quiet to give any number or percentage associated with their revenue-sharing plans
----- NHL would be wise to offer more than the $189 million giving players hope that all teams can afford higher payroll
----- NHL should offer for all 30 teams to share 55% of the local revenues and all of the league generated revenue


If players are willing to accept this counter-proposal, a one-time only offer will be used to lower UFA to 29 instead of 31. Otherwise, they will immediately provide the NHLPA with another proposal loaded with a stricter system and without the reduction in age for UFA.

The league has a chance to really back the players into a corner by dropping the cap stance for one time only, if the NHLPA refuses, it will greatly enhance the NHL's ability to win the approval of the national labor boards in the US and Canadian provinces for an impasse and unilateral implementation.

If the league is smart, they take advantage of Bob Goodenow's HUGE mistake because his offer admits the league has significant problems and by refusing to accept the league's counter-proposal, he sets himself and the union to lose any ground of bad faith negotiations by the NHL with the NLRB.

EricBowser is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:36 PM
  #2
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
The NHL has a great opportunity to really back the NHLPA into a corner by offering a counter-proposal based off the framework of last week's NHLPA ten-tab binder for a one-time offer on the frame work of their proposal.

If they refuse to accept the six main points, then their immediate counter-proposal will be the prior offers of a hard salary cap, etc and announcement that impasse might be the only way to save the league since the players refuse to accept any sort of meaningful negotiation in the framework of a long-term solution, even after they tried to use a luxury tax system of the NHLPA's own choice.

Here's the negotiated proposal, I'd like to see by the NHL.

1. Accept the 24% rollback for all signed contracts

2. Luxury Tax with teeth
- NHLPA proposed too high of a threshold and a weak penalty for going over
----NHL should propose the following luxury tax
--------- less than $31 million is non-taxed
--------- $31,000,001 to $39,999,999 = $1 tax
--------- $40,000,000 to $49,999,999 = $2 tax
--------- $50,000,000 to $59,999,999 = $3 tax
--------- $60,000,000 to $69,999,999 = $4 tax
--------- $70,000,000 and beyond is == $5 tax

3. Entry-Level Contracts
- NHLPA proposed increasing the length to four years and capping the base salary, annual signing bonus, and tye A bonus
----- NHL should propose the following
----------- accept the length of the ELC as 4-years
----------- accept the maximum annual base salary as $850,000
----------- accept the maximum annual signing bonus as $212,500
----------- accept the maximum annual Type A performance bonus as $850,000
----------- cap the annual Type B performance bonus as $850,000
----------- under the NHLPA proposal players could get $1,912,500 plus unlimited Type B
----------- under the NHL proposal players could get $2,762,500

4. Qualifying Offer
- NHLPA proposal did little to save owners from keeping current salaries for players undeserving of a raise
------- NHL should propose the following QO system
----------- players making over $1,000,000 must receive 75% QO's
----------- players making less than $660,000 must receive 85% QO's
----------- players between $660,000 and $1,000,000 must receive 80% QO's

5. Arbitration
- NHLPA proposal limits a team to file once per year, no more than twice in 3-years, and player can only be taken once
-------NHL should propose the following arbitration
--------- Any player making over $1.3 million can be subjected to arbitration and no more than three times in his career
--------- Player no longer selects the term, all awards will be based on 1-year contracts
--------- Team can take two players to arbitration per year, no limitation for 3-year period like NHLPA
--------- A 3-judge panel will choose between the team or player salary request
--------- Team must offer QO of 90% to elect arbitration but can request a salary of their choosing

6. Revenue-Sharing
- NHLPA has proposed sharing $189 million but wants more
----- NHL has been very quiet to give any number or percentage associated with their revenue-sharing plans
----- NHL would be wise to offer more than the $189 million giving players hope that all teams can afford higher payroll
----- NHL should offer for all 30 teams to share 55% of the local revenues and all of the league generated revenue


If players are willing to accept this counter-proposal, a one-time only offer will be used to lower UFA to 29 instead of 31. Otherwise, they will immediately provide the NHLPA with another proposal loaded with a stricter system and without the reduction in age for UFA.

The league has a chance to really back the players into a corner by dropping the cap stance for one time only, if the NHLPA refuses, it will greatly enhance the NHL's ability to win the approval of the national labor boards in the US and Canadian provinces for an impasse and unilateral implementation.

If the league is smart, they take advantage of Bob Goodenow's HUGE mistake because his offer admits the league has significant problems and by refusing to accept the league's counter-proposal, he sets himself and the union to lose any ground of bad faith negotiations by the NHL with the NLRB.

I agree 200% with everything you just stated

a 2$ tax over 40 million should stop payrolls on most occasions

likea is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:40 PM
  #3
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
WOW!! that luxury tax certainly does have some bite and I like..

..only problem I see with the 1 time offer is if this baby does end up in an impass - from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) the league would have to unilateraly impose its last offer which could be the luxury tax.

So with that in mind, if this league offered this proposal - even once - wouldn't they essentially be giving up their cost certainty quest if this goes to court?

X0ssbar is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:44 PM
  #4
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf
WOW!! that luxury tax certainly does have some bite and I like..

..only problem I see with the 1 time offer is if this baby does end up in an impass - from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) the league would have to unilateraly impose its last offer which could be the luxury tax.

So with that in mind, if this league offered this proposal - even once - wouldn't they essentially be giving up their cost certainty quest if this goes to court?
from what I understand, yes, they would be BUT this proposal would do what the NHl wants it to do

no owner would want to spend 1 dollar for eveything over 31 million plus 2 more dollars for everything over 40

if Toronto would brings its payroll to 45 million they would pay 19 million dollars in tax.....

it would keep payrolls within a certain percentage of revenue....and it provides luxery tax system which is what the NHLPA wants

BUT the NHL may have to give some of the percentage rollback back to the NHLPA to make this happen

likea is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:46 PM
  #5
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
2. Luxury Tax with teeth
- NHLPA proposed too high of a threshold and a weak penalty for going over
----NHL should propose the following luxury tax
--------- less than $31 million is non-taxed
--------- $31,000,001 to $39,999,999 = $1 tax
--------- $40,000,000 to $49,999,999 = $2 tax
--------- $50,000,000 to $59,999,999 = $3 tax
--------- $60,000,000 to $69,999,999 = $4 tax
--------- $70,000,000 and beyond is == $5 tax


If players are willing to accept this counter-proposal, a one-time only offer will be used to lower UFA to 29 instead of 31. Otherwise, they will immediately provide the NHLPA with another proposal loaded with a stricter system and without the reduction in age for UFA.

The league has a chance to really back the players into a corner by dropping the cap stance for one time only, if the NHLPA refuses, it will greatly enhance the NHL's ability to win the approval of the national labor boards in the US and Canadian provinces for an impasse and unilateral implementation.
But this isnt dropping the cap stance. What you have proposed is a cap that only rich teams can exceed. And with the new controlling mechanisms in place, these teeth arent needed anymore.

Is it the owners who want to lower the age of UFA? Why are fans that want a system that helps them keep their UFAs so anxious to lower the age of free agency?

If they came up with a tax designed for revenue sharing rather than attempting to disgiuse one as a cap, and then came with all your other proposals, I would think Bettman and Goodenow could craft as brilliant an agreement as they did last time. Which from me, is meant as a compliment.

All the other things you mentioned, I would think are the things that are easily negotiable and agreement could be reached on. I dont think they are all necessary, but neither are any show stoppers. That is what they should be negotiating. Except for your cost certainty part I highlighted.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:47 PM
  #6
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
The NHL has a great opportunity to really back the NHLPA into a corner by offering a counter-proposal based off the framework of last week's NHLPA ten-tab binder for a one-time offer on the frame work of their proposal.
....

All very good ideas, and I think it would be very doable.

The thing that I would have to disagree with is the part about making this offer improving the NHL's chances if they do declare impasse. I believe one of the reasons MLB lost in their attempt to declare an impasse was because they started negotiating a luxury tax. The judge looked at that and said an impasse could not exist on that issue. If the NHL does make this offer, they would not be able to retract it and impose a CBA with a cap.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:47 PM
  #7
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
I think $2 for over 40 mill is to steep.

I would say .80 over 40 million, 1.00 over 45 mil, 1.5 over 50 mil and 2.00 over 55 mil.

I might see the NHLPA agreeing to that but they would neve agree to $2 over 40mil.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:51 PM
  #8
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Even a 200% tax at 40 million alone, to get to 50 million in payroll it will cost 70 million, and to get to 60 million in payroll would cost 100 million. So what you propose is a cap dressed up as a tax. I believe they should accept most of the ancillary stuff with some proposed adjustments in their favor, and propose a tax of 150 % at 30 million.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:51 PM
  #9
Nomad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Why limit Type B bonuses on an entry level contract? If a player leads the league in a statistical category, he probably earned those bonuses. That's either a lack of understanding of what they are, or the flexing of muscles.

Qualifying offers are founded on the idea that a player's worth doesn't diminish by the time he is an unrestricted free agent. If the team doesn't think he is worth what his last contract paid him, then they should not qualify him. Going less than 100% on a QO is a bad idea.

Oh, and a take it or leave it proposition as you suggest will do nothing to promote the good faith argument in impasse hearings. It would actually hurt much more than help.

Nomad is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:55 PM
  #10
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf

So with that in mind, if this league offered this proposal - even once - wouldn't they essentially be giving up their cost certainty quest if this goes to court?
Yep. Bettman has to decide by Tuesday if a legitimate tax can work for him. If he proposes a tax, he can't get a cap imposed at impasse.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 02:58 PM
  #11
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricBowser
The league has a chance to really back the players into a corner by dropping the cap stance for one time only, if the NHLPA refuses, it will greatly enhance the NHL's ability to win the approval of the national labor boards in the US and Canadian provinces for an impasse and unilateral implementation.

If the league is smart, they take advantage of Bob Goodenow's HUGE mistake because his offer admits the league has significant problems and by refusing to accept the league's counter-proposal, he sets himself and the union to lose any ground of bad faith negotiations by the NHL with the NLRB.
I dont see how. You surely arent speaking as someone trying for a partnership. If you come with this attitude that you are dictators and you are going to impose your will and is up to the players to capitulate, this 1920's attitude will not lead to good results.

I dont think the owners want to go the impasse road. They no longer have any need to either. They said they want to negotiate. Nows there chance to demonstrate their good faith. If they come with any hard cap or cost certainty rhetoric in an attempt to dicatate their power, they will get the fight they are after. If they want a solution that works, they will get that.

It is time for the owners to show their good faith. And its Christmas. Are they Santa or Scrooge. Time for all the hardline rhetoric to end and a solution found.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:00 PM
  #12
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Yep. Bettman has to decide by Tuesday if a legitimate tax can work for him. If he proposes a tax, he can't get a cap imposed at impasse.
Which is why his proposal will contain cost certainty.

The ONLY time the NHL will come off their stance is to sign a deal once they've extracted maximum concessions.

The ONLY time the NHLPA will come off their stance is to sign a deal once they've realized it is the only way to play in the NHL.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:05 PM
  #13
Nomad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Well then they are going to get to try their hand at an impasse and fail. Cost certainty isn't going to fly the way the NHL defines it, and the PA's offer pretty much guaranteed that. The PA made an offer that a court would look at and say is reasonable. If the NHL goes for their cost certainty model, the court will throw out their case.

Nomad is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:20 PM
  #14
Lexicon Devil
Registered User
 
Lexicon Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 8,343
vCash: 500
Some of the luxury tax numbers being thrown around are absolutely ridiculous.

Lexicon Devil is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 03:30 PM
  #15
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil
Some of the luxury tax numbers being thrown around are absolutely ridiculous.
the NHLPA purposly kept the tax rates LOW to appease the NHL. its the NHL owners who dont want to share significant revenue, which a real luxury tax is desgined for.

think about this. even owners dont trust each other enough to share revenue, why should the players trust them ?

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 04:34 PM
  #16
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the NHLPA purposly kept the tax rates LOW to appease the NHL. its the NHL owners who dont want to share significant revenue, which a real luxury tax is desgined for.

think about this. even owners dont trust each other enough to share revenue, why should the players trust them ?

dr

where do you get your information??? because I am certain that is just not true

the NHL owners wanted to keep the revenue sharing portion low, it states it in the NHLPA proposal....

it does not state the NHL wants low luxery tax numbers....

likea is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 04:37 PM
  #17
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the NHLPA purposly kept the tax rates LOW to appease the NHL. its the NHL owners who dont want to share significant revenue, which a real luxury tax is desgined for.
That's simply untrue and you know it.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 04:50 PM
  #18
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
That's simply untrue and you know it.
I think it depends on the owner.
Nashville's owner might like it.
But I doubt Detroit's owner wants it.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 04:52 PM
  #19
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
I think it depends on the owner.
Nashville's owner might like it.
But I doubt Detroit's owner wants it.
Collectively NHL wants atleast stiff luxury taxes if they don't get hard cap. Sure, Ilitch and Dolan are probably the least enthuastic about it but it seems they fully support Bettman in this issue.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 05:02 PM
  #20
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Sure, Ilitch and Dolan are probably the least enthuastic about it but it seems they fully support Bettman in this issue.
What would be leading you to that conclusion? SOmething they said? I would bet there is some interesting discussions going on in the owners boardrooms about now.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 05:43 PM
  #21
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad
Well then they are going to get to try their hand at an impasse and fail. Cost certainty isn't going to fly the way the NHL defines it, and the PA's offer pretty much guaranteed that. The PA made an offer that a court would look at and say is reasonable. If the NHL goes for their cost certainty model, the court will throw out their case.
I don't know where you get this idea. Here is a case history where it states that:

"NRLA Section 8(d) precludes the NRLB from compelling concessions or otherwise sitting in judgement on the substance of negotiations..."

http://www.fishmangroup.com/pub_art/pdf/bti.pdf

From this article I get that the NLRB is only going to get involved if something can be considered an unfair labor practice, not in the specifics of the negotiations including whether or not to consider if an offer is reasonable. It is up to the parties involved to decide what is reasonable. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear from this article...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
12-12-2004, 06:36 PM
  #22
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,641
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the NHLPA purposly kept the tax rates LOW to appease the NHL. its the NHL owners who dont want to share significant revenue, which a real luxury tax is desgined for.

think about this. even owners dont trust each other enough to share revenue, why should the players trust them ?

dr
Oh please. All player contracts are registered with the NHL. The NHL knows how much the payrolls are, just how hard could it be to calculate the luxury tax. A 10 year old with a calculator could do it.

Hiding revenue streams won't do them any good if the tax is based on a payroll.


Last edited by me2: 12-13-2004 at 12:28 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 02:25 AM
  #23
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
What would be leading you to that conclusion? SOmething they said? I would bet there is some interesting discussions going on in the owners boardrooms about now.
Well prove me wrong, so far there is absolutely zero evidence of any breaks in owners ranks.

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 02:50 AM
  #24
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
That's simply untrue and you know it.
If you go and read the document on the NHLPA website, you'll see that the players have offered higher luxury taxes which would reduce revenue disparity further. They base their proposal on a tax which generates 65 million because that's what the owners want.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
12-13-2004, 04:28 AM
  #25
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
If you go and read the document on the NHLPA website, you'll see that the players have offered higher luxury taxes which would reduce revenue disparity further.
They have? You mean those taxes which start at what $65M and only affect couple of teams and even them quite little?

But the claim that PA offered low luxury taxes because that's what owners want is nothing short of complete fairytale.

Pepper 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 11:30 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.