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.

Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2004, 03:22 AM
  #1
Jazz
Registered User
 
Jazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,442
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Jazz
Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

Anyone interested in hearing Brian Burke's take on the recent developments, he was on his weekly slot on Vancouver radio last night. His interpretation is that the NHLPA will do basically anything to preserve the current system (due to the lack of any adjustments to the systemic issues) and threw out a number (in this case 24%) to make it look like they have moved significantly.

To access the interview:

As for my thoughts:

I kept hearing earlier in the week that the rumoured luxury tax would start at $40-44 million US and with a rate of 75cents/dollar penalty after that. And then when I initially heard of the 24% roll-back of the salary earlier today - I thought that this combined with the $40/44 million 75cent tax I was actually getting excited about the prospects of this whole mess getting settled.

Then I heard that the NHLPA upped it's luxury tax threshold (to $45 million) and lowered the penatly rate to a mere 20cents my hopes sank.

Basically I think Goodenow was brilliant today - he knows that this offer will not be accepted. And if there is to be any negotiation, he will cut the percentage of the roll-back. I expect something along these lines to occur on Tuesday:

Gary: Bob, nice effort here, but we need to lower the luxury tax level and make the penalties harsher.
Bob: well in that case, we are going to cut the roll-back of the salaries to (eg) only 15%.

In the end, the PA and "not-Goodenough" will say to the public - "We made the bigger push" and try to put the blame on the owners for the loss of the season. Very clever - I just hope most fans see past this.

Jazz is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:31 AM
  #2
TonySCV
Moderator
Two Timer!
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,169
vCash: 500
Burke has some great insight.

Burke - "Alarm bells should go off in every fan's mind - look at the huge amount of money the players are willing to pay to keep the current system" because it works so well for them.


Last edited by TonySCV: 12-10-2004 at 03:46 AM.
TonySCV is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 03:54 AM
  #3
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,443
vCash: 500
Yeah, Burke nailed it there. Players know that salaries will be back to current level in few years if the current system is preserved.

Too bad some of the less knowledgeable fans fell/will fall for their PR and believe they are really addressing the REAL issue. Newsflash for all of you, they are NOT!

Pepper is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:05 AM
  #4
Riddarn
1980-2011
 
Riddarn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 9,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurj
As for my thoughts:

I kept hearing earlier in the week that the rumoured luxury tax would start at $40-44 million US and with a rate of 75cents/dollar penalty after that. And then when I initially heard of the 24% roll-back of the salary earlier today - I thought that this combined with the $40/44 million 75cent tax I was actually getting excited about the prospects of this whole mess getting settled.

Then I heard that the NHLPA upped it's luxury tax threshold (to $45 million) and lowered the penatly rate to a mere 20cents my hopes sank.

Basically I think Goodenow was brilliant today - he knows that this offer will not be accepted. And if there is to be any negotiation, he will cut the percentage of the roll-back. I expect something along these lines to occur on Tuesday:

Gary: Bob, nice effort here, but we need to lower the luxury tax level and make the penalties harsher.
Bob: well in that case, we are going to cut the roll-back of the salaries to (eg) only 15%.

In the end, the PA and "not-Goodenough" will say to the public - "We made the bigger push" and try to put the blame on the owners for the loss of the season. Very clever - I just hope most fans see past this.
I agree with you. This is a PR stunt. If the NHL would have accepted a luxury tax system and a roll back this conflict would have been resolved months ago. 24% rollback sounds impressive at first but all effects of it are temporary. Should the NHL accept any of this deal then they would have locked out all its players for half a season for nothing.

Riddarn is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:33 AM
  #5
Oilers Ent
Registered User
 
Oilers Ent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,665
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Oilers Ent
Brian Burke is awesome:

"They are trying to pay a massive bribe to keep the current system going."

The NHLPA's smoke machines are in full throttle. I can't wait to see what the league comes back with.

Oilers Ent is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 04:39 AM
  #6
no13matssundin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddarn
I agree with you. This is a PR stunt. If the NHL would have accepted a luxury tax system and a roll back this conflict would have been resolved months ago. 24% rollback sounds impressive at first but all effects of it are temporary. Should the NHL accept any of this deal then they would have locked out all its players for half a season for nothing.
I completely agree. Its a 100% PR stunt. The owners, by accepting this, arent fixing the system and are taking a short term solution with, as Burke reminded on TSN, no guarentees that the numbers the PA is setting out (a Billion dollars in savings). The truth is that theyre just trying to look good in the public eye...

the best thing Bettman can do is bring a counter proposal that uses the same system that the PA put forth that links to salaries and gives the luxury tax some semblance of bite.

that way, when the PA reject the counterproposal, the PA has to explain why they turned down a good deal based on their own framework to the public.

As for the season, though, its lost. The players are playing both the NHL and the media and, unfortunately, it looks as if the fans are the ones to pay.

I only have ONE THING to say to Bettman: I know the owners have locked 'em out... youve gone this far... Now, if youre willing to cancel a season over this, FIX THE SYSTEM so that the loss of the 04-05 season was not in vain. And dont come back until you do... cause I dont want to have to go through this 6 years from now.

Make all this worth something, Mr. Bettman.

no13matssundin is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:36 AM
  #7
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41,757
vCash: 500
Let me add something that is not talked about that adds to the emperor having no clothes comment from Burke on the 24%. that 24% rollback effects current valid NHL contracts only. think about how many big name nhl players are currently without a contract and how many other big name nhl players are currently in the last year of their contracts. these players are not effected at all by that 24% rollback.

Martin St Louis is still going to hit the jackpot. Palffy, Glen Murray, Dan McGillis, Alexi Zhitnik are all still unsigned. Sergei Gonchar becomes a UFA in July. He loses about $1.25m, almost all of his raise given from arbitration, with the 24%, but when he becomes unrestricted does anyone actually think that he not going to get all that money back and then some as a free agent?? of course not.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:38 AM
  #8
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Refreshing to see that many fans see past this PR stunt.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 07:51 AM
  #9
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,434
vCash: 500
One other thing to note: When doing the calculations for revenue sharing (which is entirely too significant in addition to the tax given the lack of system changes) the NHLPA acknowledges the URO numbers. By using those numbers they are essentially conceeding the numbers are fine. If they are fine for that why aren't they fine for tying the thresholds to revenue? The NHL can turn around and put the pressure straight back on the NHLPA by saying that $X mil is actually Y% and that is how we want to define the thresholds. Give the NHLPA a guarantee that when the books are audited by an independent that the Y% will not result in a number lower than X. If it's higher like the NHLPA wants everyone to believe then the percentage results in a new threshold of $Z mil that is greater than X. It gets rid of any sort of mistrust issues if the only place for the number to go based on todays book is up.

I give the players credit there is a start here. But I don't think it does enough things in terms of system changes to be completely heralded at all. The 24% sounds nice but without serious changes to the qualifiers, tax, bonuses and arbitration it isn't nearly enough. Of course the league can negotiate further. I don't like the fact the NHLPA has published this thing before the folks they are bargaining with have had a chance to read and respond. Seems like a negotiation no no to me. If the owners turn around and reject it and the players reject the counter then full details but not now. Based on this deal I expect the owners to come back with:

75% qualifier on players making more than $2 million
90% on players between 1-2 mill
100% 600-1 mil
110% below 600k
The inflationary qualifier must be taken away and must be able to serve as a deflator in salary for underperforming players who might still be valuable to a team on the ice or in trade.

Luxury tax system?Revenue sharing:
20% tax from 40-45
50% tax from 45-50
100% from 50-55
200% from 55-60
hard cap of $60 mil
I expect these threshholds to be tied to revenue levels while giving a guarantee that those perecentages are accurate by saying they will not be less than those levels. I expect the NHL will give back some of the rollback to get the elevated hard cap. Too many levels...yeah probably. The additional revenue sharing seems like quite a bit...I think the players will need to give up significantly more to get that level of sharing on top of a luxury tax revenue sharing system.

Entry level system:
the NHLPA threw the young guys under the bus as expected. There is probably very little issue here. Can be pretty much accepted as is.

arbitration:
it goes without saying that the new comparable will be on the rollback salary. The changes aren't bad but not enough. Higher salary players can be taken to arbitration. The NHL will respond by wanting the team to have more power yet. Mainly they will want to choose term. I doubt they get that. However what they will for sure want is a limit to the number of times a player can go to arbitration and the right to bring a player to arbitration the same number of times. My guess is they will go for a player getting to choose arbitration once and the team being able to bring the player to arbitration once. And they will want to be able to exercise this option on more than one player on it's roster in a year. The NHL will not like the hold-out clause...at the time you beasically have to declare hold out a team may not know they have a hold out on their hands! My guess is the NHL will want a clause that forces arbitration if the player is not signed by October 1. As well the NHL will want the arbitrator to choose an offer...not make the number up.

There are some significant changes that need to be made here I think.

I think signing bonuses have to be addressed. I think they need to be limited and they need to count annually against any drag system. I didn't see that anywhere.


A start yes. The union has given the owners a chip to bargain with (i.e. giving back some of the proposed cutback). But the NHL will want MAJOR changes to the system issues which by and large aren't addressed sufficiently and are the major point the owners want addressed. However, the union has recognized they are the losers in this battle, have essentially conceeded the owners numbers are correct by basing the calculations on the URO's (no mention of hidden revenues anymore), and have given up quite a bit in what amounts to a first REAL proposal on their part. It seems to me they clearly recognize they have the weaker hand in this. But no way does the NHL accept this offer without some major things being changes. The union uses the URO's I see no reason why they can now not accept tying those tax thresholds to a percentage with the corollary that an independent firm auidts them every year of course.

BUt for the NHLPA...offering a huge paycut AND a tax system AND entry level restrictions AND further arbitration restrictions on a first serious offer which amounts to the best deal they think they have a hope of getting tells you all you need to know about the health of the league and why there is a lockout.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:15 AM
  #10
Shane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,975
vCash: 500
Brian Burke is awesome.

Shane is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 08:55 AM
  #11
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,558
vCash: 500
I always respected Burke, and all I can say is wow. I wish he was in charge. Does anybody know if he wants to pursue the nhl front office again?

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:44 AM
  #12
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
I always respected Burke, and all I can say is wow. I wish he was in charge. Does anybody know if he wants to pursue the nhl front office again?
In my mind there is no doubt Burke is using this lockout and his time in the media to put forward his case of being the next commissioner. Players for the most part respect him. He's played the game. GMs respect him. He's a lawyer. He makes sense. It's just my feeling that if Bettman is turfed after this battle is over Burke wants his hat in the ring. I'd welcome it.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 09:48 AM
  #13
chiavsfan
Registered User
 
chiavsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,426
vCash: 500
I dont exactly like Burke (being an Avs fan) but at the same time, he IS smart, he DOES know what he is talking about, and most importantly he KNOWS the game of hockey. In that regard, I would be all for an actual HOCKEY guy being the HOCKEY commissioner

chiavsfan is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:06 AM
  #14
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Yeah, Burke nailed it there. Players know that salaries will be back to current level in few years if the current system is preserved.

Too bad some of the less knowledgeable fans fell/will fall for their PR and believe they are really addressing the REAL issue. Newsflash for all of you, they are NOT!
If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.


Either that or Bettman's support among owners is cracking, and he's starting to feel the need to get something done.
Who knows? It ain't the deal he's looking for, but he could turn around and say "What other commissioner ever won 24 percent from a PA in negotiations?"

We'd all know it's not as great as he portends it to be. But when you're trying to save face, your're trying to save face.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:32 AM
  #15
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.


Either that or Bettman's support among owners is cracking, and he's starting to feel the need to get something done.
Who knows? It ain't the deal he's looking for, but he could turn around and say "What other commissioner ever won 24 percent from a PA in negotiations?"

We'd all know it's not as great as he portends it to be. But when you're trying to save face, your're trying to save face.

I think when your opponent in a CBA negotiation comes to you with their first proposal, or as Alfredson said "we thought it was time to give a responsible proposal..." and included in that is some fairly serious concessions the last thing you do is go running back to your camp crying victory and stopping there. You go back thinking you have your opponent on the ropes for them to offer up these concessions so early. Now these concessions are sugar coated and only surface issues for the most part but they are significant and worth working from to get the real issues solved. But in the end the owners negotiating committee is not happy at all with this deal and the owners shouldn't be as it fails to seriously address their major concerns and desires in a new CBA. They are happy however that the players have finally recognized there is a problem with their salaries and have used the URO numbers in their calculations and don't seem to dispute them. Seems to me Bettman has no face to save at all....the owners are going to get some huge concessions from the players when all is said and done. It isn't if the owners win it is how big the victory is going to be. Whether or not the solution is based on this proposal or not. I expect in the end Bettman will be replaced as the players do hate him and that isn't necessarily a good thing but he'll be replaced while getting a huge pat on the back.

tantalum is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:34 AM
  #16
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
You know what I find funny, ex owners from this league see this proposal as a gift. Arthur Griffiths the ex owner of the Canucks has read the proposal and when interviewed on Global last night, said that the owners should negotiate higher rates in luxury tax but look at the offer as the gift it was intended to be.

I trust him more than a man who is trying to ensure himself a job at the end of the lockout.

One thought, pilots from Delta and Air Canada just took wage rollbacks in this range, they got a large award of shares in the company. What do players get for this rollback?

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:37 AM
  #17
A Good Flying Bird*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum
I think when your opponent in a CBA negotiation comes to you with their first proposal, or as Alfredson said "we thought it was time to give a responsible proposal..." and included in that is some fairly serious concessions the last thing you do is go running back to your camp crying victory and stopping there. You go back thinking you have your opponent on the ropes for them to offer up these concessions so early. Now these concessions are sugar coated and only surface issues for the most part but they are significant and worth working from to get the real issues solved. But in the end the owners negotiating committee is not happy at all with this deal and the owners shouldn't be as it fails to seriously address their major concerns and desires in a new CBA. They are happy however that the players have finally recognized there is a problem with their salaries and have used the URO numbers in their calculations and don't seem to dispute them. Seems to me Bettman has no face to save at all....the owners are going to get some huge concessions from the players when all is said and done. It isn't if the owners win it is how big the victory is going to be. Whether or not the solution is based on this proposal or not. I expect in the end Bettman will be replaced as the players do hate him and that isn't necessarily a good thing but he'll be replaced while getting a huge pat on the back.

I don't mean to suggest that Bettman is on the defensive.
I thought it was pretty clear that I was speculating.

A Good Flying Bird* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:46 AM
  #18
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.


Either that or Bettman's support among owners is cracking, and he's starting to feel the need to get something done.
Who knows? It ain't the deal he's looking for, but he could turn around and say "What other commissioner ever won 24 percent from a PA in negotiations?"

We'd all know it's not as great as he portends it to be. But when you're trying to save face, your're trying to save face.
I think you will see an NHL counter proposal that used parts of the PA proposal other than the luxury tax. the 24% cut in salaries is a misdirection. it sounds big but it only effects the 60% of NHL players those that are currently under contract and will more than marginal effect only on the 20% of NHL players that are signed to contracts that last past July 2005. Unsigned players like Martin St Louis, Ziggy Palffy, Glen Murray, Alexi Kovalev, Alexi Zhitnik, and Dan McGillis for starters wont be effected at all.

that 24% will have disappeared in two years.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 10:55 AM
  #19
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
I think you will see an NHL counter proposal that used parts of the PA proposal other than the luxury tax. the 24% cut in salaries is a misdirection. it sounds big but it only effects the 60% of NHL players those that are currently under contract and will more than marginal effect only on the 20% of NHL players that are signed to contracts that last past July 2005. Unsigned players like Martin St Louis, Ziggy Palffy, Glen Murray, Alexi Kovalev, Alexi Zhitnik, and Dan McGillis for starters wont be effected at all.

that 24% will have disappeared in two years.
I want everyone to explain to me how player salaries are going to escalate? Group 3 free agent contracts are never used in arbitration awards. These owners are all screaming poverty so why would they all go into stupidity mode. You say they are smart business people who are only trying to take the league back, so what after negotiations they take stupid pills again?

So Martin St Louis and Jerome Iginlas contracts can only be arbitrated using the adjusted contracts, so essentially they are getting the 24% rollback too. So again explain to me how salaries are going to be back to normal in 4 years.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:03 AM
  #20
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
One thought, pilots from Delta and Air Canada just took wage rollbacks in this range, they got a large award of shares in the company. What do players get for this rollback?
They will still have jobs in 5 years time.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:06 AM
  #21
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
They will still have jobs in 5 years time.
I heard that phoney line of BS in 94 too. Amazing how the league is not only still around but bigger than before. Funny people fail to mention the the revenues of the league have quadrupled since then but player salaries have only tripled. It amazes me how many people know 0 about the 94 lockout and are swallowing the NHL party line hook line and sinker, when they fed us the same line of BS back then.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 11:09 AM
  #22
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.


Either that or Bettman's support among owners is cracking, and he's starting to feel the need to get something done.
Who knows? It ain't the deal he's looking for, but he could turn around and say "What other commissioner ever won 24 percent from a PA in negotiations?"

We'd all know it's not as great as he portends it to be. But when you're trying to save face, your're trying to save face.
It is either:

1. A good place to start in negotiations.

2. Too good an offer to dismiss and still keep the impasse card available.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:07 PM
  #23
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
I want everyone to explain to me how player salaries are going to escalate? Group 3 free agent contracts are never used in arbitration awards. These owners are all screaming poverty so why would they all go into stupidity mode. You say they are smart business people who are only trying to take the league back, so what after negotiations they take stupid pills again?

So Martin St Louis and Jerome Iginlas contracts can only be arbitrated using the adjusted contracts, so essentially they are getting the 24% rollback too. So again explain to me how salaries are going to be back to normal in 4 years.
how are players salaries going to escalate? simple. the same way that craig conroy went from $2.2m to 4 years at $12.6m. the same way that kris draper went from $1.47m to 4 years at $11.2m. the same way jassen cullimore went from $1.65m to 4 years at $9.8m.

St Louis passed on arbitration. with an MVP and a scoring title in his pocket he is not going to be taking any paycuts. unrestricted free agents sign for the best deal they can get. the detroit red wings who are not among the owners in financial trouble would be happy to outbid other teams for the players they need. Toronto as well.

txpd is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:13 PM
  #24
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
how are players salaries going to escalate? simple. the same way that craig conroy went from $2.2m to 4 years at $12.6m. the same way that kris draper went from $1.47m to 4 years at $11.2m. the same way jassen cullimore went from $1.65m to 4 years at $9.8m.

St Louis passed on arbitration. with an MVP and a scoring title in his pocket he is not going to be taking any paycuts. unrestricted free agents sign for the best deal they can get. the detroit red wings who are not among the owners in financial trouble would be happy to outbid other teams for the players they need. Toronto as well.
Most of the cases you site are cases of out of control arbitration, this has been taken care of, there is no more only one offer on the table.

St Louis is going to be subject to arbitration and all arbitration contracts will be based on the rolled back amount. Remember the owners now have the right to take hold outs to arbitration. Oh and remember group III contracts are never used as a base for arbitration.

I suggest the league put in huge measures for repeat offenders in the index the union supports. This would put a huge stumbling block in the way of large market teams to consistantly over spend, without penalizing teams that have to go over once due to the injury bug.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-10-2004, 12:14 PM
  #25
MePutPuckInNet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
I think it's important to reiterate that this proposal was set forth by the NHLPA in an attempt to BEGIN the negotiating process. They must know, by definition of the term "negotiations" that this proposal was not going to be accepted in full. So, slamming them on the basis that this is only a PR stunt, in my opinion, is premature. It was an attempt to get serious discussions going. It appears that that may have happened. Maybe many of you, along with Brian Burke, are jumping the gun in being overly critical at this point in time. This WAS a big adjustment for the NHLPA. I think a little more credit should be given for their attempt at moving this along.

This an interesting proposal. If the owners accept it, or even accept the rollback of 24% with an increase in luxury tax [ie., .45, or somewhere around there after tweaking], then,,,,won't we be left to conclude that they were blowing smoke all along? That's what I'm gonna conclude, for sure.

On the other hand, if they do stick to their guns,,,,I'll be able to respect the owner's a little more than I do....which ain't much, trust me.

TXPD said: "Let me add something that is not talked about that adds to the emperor having no clothes comment from Burke on the 24%. that 24% rollback effects current valid NHL contracts only. think about how many big name nhl players are currently without a contract and how many other big name nhl players are currently in the last year of their contracts. these players are not effected at all by that 24% rollback."

While that may be true - it also places the power back into the hands of the owners, by giving them immediate relief of their cash flow deficit. Hopefully, they'll have learned something and they won't have to have a "Law" to enforce something that they should damn well be able to do on their own - STOP OVERSPENDING. I just don't believe that they'll be making the same mistakes they've been making. If they're truly that stupid, then they deserve to lose their shirts.

I agree with most of you, however - this doesn't fully address the systemic changes that are needed. But, I think the NHLPA is aware of that as well, I would expect the NHL to come back with a proposal that would have more of a long term effect. But, again, I think the players shouldn't be criticized just yet. It's a little too early in the serious negotiation phase for that.

MePutPuckInNet 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 02:30 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.