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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL Proposal was very generous and fair

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2005, 10:24 PM
  #1
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
NHL Proposal was very generous and fair

The NHL was very very generous in it's last offer.

(1)The Union can open up cba discussions after 4 years. The NHL is basically guaranteeing their proposal. You know, guarantee is a word the NHLPA does not understand. If the players don't like what's going on, then hey, they can renegotiate. That's something the Union would not let the NHL do this past cba. Props to the NHL on being this open minded.

(2)The Entry Level system is superb. 4 Year 2-way contracts ($850,000 maximum compensation ). That is still ALOT of money. A lot of bonuses are still included in there.

(3)100% Qualifying Offers for Players earning less than $800,000. A signing deadline for players 14 days after training camp. The NHL is looking after the fans bigtime here. They are ensuring we know our roster by the start of the season without any worry. Same Right to Match/Draft Choice Compensation Rules.

(4)Salary arbitration is entirely mutual. This is HUGE. The players actually still get to go to arbitration. This is something the NHL wanted to get rid of entirely. Talk about being really generous.

(7)Unrestricted free agency would be gone down to 30. Thats one whole year. That's an extra years raise for a lot of guys. Once again the NHL is being generous. The contracts are also still GUARANTEED!!!!

(8)NHL minumum salary is INCREASED to $300 000/year. Yeah that's right. It has gone UP.

(7)The payroll range is still fair. A good 10 million or so for the big market clubs to spend more money. Hello!! That's 2 Markus Naslunds as of right now!!!

(8)The NHL is even considering listening to the PA about a payroll tax!! The NHL said they never wanted one but are so open minded that they said they will at least listen. The union, on the otherhand, will not even listen to anything with thr word cap or linkage in there.

(9)PROFIT SHARING. Yeah you heard me correctly. These "greedy Owners" are actually considering sharing their profits with their employees. Talk about forging a partnership.

(10)Revenue sharing is something they are going to look more into and improve as well.

(11)Joint audit controls for calculating club revenue. The NHL has an answer to the PA's claim of mistrust. They are asking them to help pick an auditor so that they have some peace of mind. Again, the NHL is trying everything to reach out to the union. The fines for lying are INSANE!! There's your trust right there players.

(12) They want a joint owner-player council to improve the game

(13)They are willing to pay the players if there are playoffs this year. Normally it's free but they are actually going to pay them. That's what I call respect and courtesy towards the players.

I can't believe how much the owners have bent thus far. Sticking in things they said would never be considered before. They are trying everything to make a partnership with the players. From an increased minumum wage, to lowering UFA. Profit sharing as well. All this while they get bashed by the PA every second day.

Take your PA goggles off people and realize how far the NHL is bending for their employees.


Last edited by Hockey_Nut99: 02-06-2005 at 10:49 PM.
 
Old
02-06-2005, 10:36 PM
  #2
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,360
vCash: 500
I hope that was sarcasm...

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 10:44 PM
  #3
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
It might be a little sarcastic, but the basic point is true.

It's an offer that will have still give the players *a ton* of cash. Maybe not quite as much as before, but they keep telling us they weren't expecting that anyway.

I still haven't seen anyone rationally show what's so bad about this offer.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 10:48 PM
  #4
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
No I was being very serious. No sarcasm at all.

 
Old
02-06-2005, 10:54 PM
  #5
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
..... bait snipped ...
troll

Brent Burns Beard is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:02 PM
  #6
Brent Burns Beard
DontTouchMyDonskoi!
 
Brent Burns Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
I still haven't seen anyone rationally show what's so bad about this offer.
i think it has some decent points if the players were willing to negotiate linkage.

however, it has some points that are clearly there as a power play by the NHL and one significant point that is a slap in the face. as long as the owners are more interested in being bullies, they wont get the PA to their side of the table.


- arbitratration deferal by 105% offer. bogus.
- ability to completely remove arbitration by lowering uFA age. since its solely at the NHL's discression, its BS.
- max 3 year contracts. this is an end around guranteed deals. typical lawyer bs.
- 14 day signing period. not fair for team or player, especially considering the other controls the team will gain

the slap is the NHL's acceptance of the players 24% roll back. its not even on the table. why would the players agree to a cap AND a roll back. one or the other, not both.

i will give the NHL credit for the following points
- 100% QO's on low end salaries
- reasonable salary floor. this is a significant concession to the players from the old CBA
- 3rd party audit and penalties with teeth
- joint player/owner competition committee

Brent Burns Beard is online now  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:39 PM
  #7
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan

I still haven't seen anyone rationally show what's so bad about this offer.
How about for starters arbitration and UFA age.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:43 PM
  #8
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
What a joke. I mean there are reasonable points, but then again neither side can offer something that has nothing reasonable in it. Anyway, the major points are not very generous, and those that are are simply common sense more than the NHL being generous.

(1)The Union can open up cba discussions after 4 years. The NHL is basically guaranteeing their proposal. You know, guarantee is a word the NHLPA does not understand. If the players don't like what's going on, then hey, they can renegotiate. That's something the Union would not let the NHL do this past cba. Props to the NHL on being this open minded.
- first off the pa were just as "open minded" when they talked about accepting a cap after 3 years if their system didn't work for the first 3 years. In my mind, the pa made a better proposal to the other side on this issue.

(2)The Entry Level system is superb. 4 Year 2-way contracts ($850,000 maximum compensation ). That is still ALOT of money. A lot of bonuses are still included in there.
- common sense, the entry level has to be refined. The pa would agree with this, as does every poster on these boards. Besides, this is in the NHL's favor, so I don't know why you are calling this so generous.

(3)100% Qualifying Offers for Players earning less than $800,000. A signing deadline for players 14 days after training camp. The NHL is looking after the fans bigtime here. They are ensuring we know our roster by the start of the season without any worry. Same Right to Match/Draft Choice Compensation Rules.
- 100% QO is okay, again something most people agree on, however this is a plus over the last CBA for the NHL. Again, not very generous. No holdouts? Come on. Doesn't get any less generous than that. Another plus for the NHL. A player can't have any say in how much he makes no matter what until he is a UFA or gets lucky in arbitration. Anyway I don't care if I know my roster by the start of the season, if a guy doesn't want to play with his contract he will be replaces, and for all I care he could sit out all season.

(4)Salary arbitration is entirely mutual. This is HUGE. The players actually still get to go to arbitration. This is something the NHL wanted to get rid of entirely. Talk about being really generous.
- A plus for the NHL. If they are going to have a linkage and a cap, I don't know why they insist on refining all the salary triggers of the old CBA. It seems like a cap or fixing of the hold CBA are two options, either could work, to propose both is not generous.

(7)Unrestricted free agency would be gone down to 30. Thats one whole year. That's an extra years raise for a lot of guys. Once again the NHL is being generous. The contracts are also still GUARANTEED!!!!
- Generous, but with a cap the big pay day won't be there at the end of the tunnel for most players anyway. On top of that, this simply removes a year of arbitration eligibility as well. I'll call it a push.

(8)NHL minumum salary is INCREASED to $300 000/year. Yeah that's right. It has gone UP.
- It has gone up, partly because the NHL needs to make it more possible for small market teams to reach the salary floor. A plus for the PA, somewhat generous, but on the whole a very minor change.

(7)The payroll range is still fair. A good 10 million or so for the big market clubs to spend more money. Hello!! That's 2 Markus Naslunds as of right now!!!
- I agree the payroll differentials have to be fixed, and it is something that PA is somewhat willing to give into. It's something everyone can support for the league as a whole, but from the players pov this is a plus to the NHL.

(8)The NHL is even considering listening to the PA about a payroll tax!! The NHL said they never wanted one but are so open minded that they said they will at least listen. The union, on the otherhand, will not even listen to anything with thr word cap or linkage in there.
- This is complete ********. I can't even believe the **** that some people say on here. THE PA WAS TALKING ABOUT A PAYROLL TAX AS THE SYSTEM IN WHICH THE LEAGUE WOULD OPPERATE, NOT AS PART OF A CAPPED/LINKED SYSTEM. THE NHL WASN'T WILLING TO LISTEN TO THIS, SAME AS THE PA HASN'T BEEN WILLING TO LISTEN TO A CAP/LINKAGE. TO SAY THAT THE NHL IS CONSIDERING LISTENING TO IT IS COMPLETE BS, THEY AREN'T LISTENING TO IT THEY SIMPLY PROPOSED THEIR SYSTEM AND SAID WE WILL THROW THIS IN THE MIDDLE TO MAKE YOU HAPPY. THE NHL TOOK IT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT AND ACTED AS IF THEY WERE GIVING IN TO THE PLAYERS ON THIS. WRONG.

(9)PROFIT SHARING. Yeah you heard me correctly. These "greedy Owners" are actually considering sharing their profits with their employees. Talk about forging a partnership.
- one part of the proposal I do like, it's something the players would agree to, overall it's a push though because 115 million in revenues in a number that might not even be reached in the next couple of years anyway, especially after losing a season to a lockout.

(10)Revenue sharing is something they are going to look more into and improve as well.
- Yea, great, unfortunetly they haven't actual proposed their revenue sharing system. Probably because Bettman doesn't want to do anything that could split the owners at this stage of the game. And to tell you the truth, if this comes with a capped system than this has nothing to do with the players, this is simply owners making owners happy. Something the league has to improve, but with a cap there anyway this has little affect on the players.

(11)Joint audit controls for calculating club revenue. The NHL has an answer to the PA's claim of mistrust. They are asking them to help pick an auditor so that they have some peace of mind. Again, the NHL is trying everything to reach out to the union. The fines for lying are INSANE!! There's your trust right there players.
- Now I wish the NHL would allow this now, before a deal is made so that the PA and the fans could know exactly the situation the NHL is in. Unfortunetly that's not the case. Advantage PA, but by the time they get this it might be too late.

(12) They want a joint owner-player council to improve the game
- Advantage everyone, no generosity here just common sense.

(13)They are willing to pay the players if there are playoffs this year. Normally it's free but they are actually going to pay them. That's what I call respect and courtesy towards the players.
- That's what I call making it worth the players time to sign a deal this late in the season. Now if this were the case for all years of the CBA, than I could see how this is generous. But that's not the case.

And, you conveniently left out the fact that the NHL also proposed to keep the 24% rollback that the players proposed in December as a fix the system type thing. The NHL said no thanks that won't help, but we will take it anyway on top of the hard cap and the linkage that you don't want either. Not very generous.

So, really the NHL's proposal was pretty unreasonable and not very generous. The only points on your list that go in the PA's favor from the last CBA are the UFA age and the minimal increase in minimum salary, which are two of the smallest points on this list. Also the joint-accounting, I just wish the NHL would allow that now so we the fans can really know what is going on.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:47 PM
  #9
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
How about for starters arbitration and UFA age.
Those things can be negotiated, I've said this all along, and I'll say it again, if the PA can at least talk about linkage, the NHL will concede on many other issues. For example, UFA age, Arbitration being brought back in the deal for good, getting rid of maximum 3 year contracts, oh, and here's a big one, maybe the PA can even get the hard cap up to 45 or 47 million, which would guarantee them more than 54% of league revenues.

This offer is a good starting point, and it fixes systemic issues in the game, and would ensure the overall health and economic prosperity of the NHL as a business. The players could also snag a Franchise Player stipulation that would allow teams to label one of their players a Franchise Player who's salary would not count against a cap, which would please the high end guys too.

The PA has to be moronic not to see this, if they discuss linkage, they can come out of this better off than the NBA players, and the NFLPA, which is a HUGE moral victory for them, considering that both of those leagues, the NFL in particular are a lot healthier financially than the NHL, and are at least able to feasibly support their player costs.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:51 PM
  #10
robcav
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
The NHL was very very generous in it's last offer.

(1)The Union can open up cba discussions after 4 years. The NHL is basically guaranteeing their proposal. You know, guarantee is a word the NHLPA does not understand. If the players don't like what's going on, then hey, they can renegotiate. That's something the Union would not let the NHL do this past cba. Props to the NHL on being this open minded.

(2)The Entry Level system is superb. 4 Year 2-way contracts ($850,000 maximum compensation ). That is still ALOT of money. A lot of bonuses are still included in there.

(3)100% Qualifying Offers for Players earning less than $800,000. A signing deadline for players 14 days after training camp. The NHL is looking after the fans bigtime here. They are ensuring we know our roster by the start of the season without any worry. Same Right to Match/Draft Choice Compensation Rules.

(4)Salary arbitration is entirely mutual. This is HUGE. The players actually still get to go to arbitration. This is something the NHL wanted to get rid of entirely. Talk about being really generous.

(7)Unrestricted free agency would be gone down to 30. Thats one whole year. That's an extra years raise for a lot of guys. Once again the NHL is being generous. The contracts are also still GUARANTEED!!!!

(8)NHL minumum salary is INCREASED to $300 000/year. Yeah that's right. It has gone UP.

(7)The payroll range is still fair. A good 10 million or so for the big market clubs to spend more money. Hello!! That's 2 Markus Naslunds as of right now!!!

(8)The NHL is even considering listening to the PA about a payroll tax!! The NHL said they never wanted one but are so open minded that they said they will at least listen. The union, on the otherhand, will not even listen to anything with thr word cap or linkage in there.

(9)PROFIT SHARING. Yeah you heard me correctly. These "greedy Owners" are actually considering sharing their profits with their employees. Talk about forging a partnership.

(10)Revenue sharing is something they are going to look more into and improve as well.

(11)Joint audit controls for calculating club revenue. The NHL has an answer to the PA's claim of mistrust. They are asking them to help pick an auditor so that they have some peace of mind. Again, the NHL is trying everything to reach out to the union. The fines for lying are INSANE!! There's your trust right there players.

(12) They want a joint owner-player council to improve the game

(13)They are willing to pay the players if there are playoffs this year. Normally it's free but they are actually going to pay them. That's what I call respect and courtesy towards the players.

I can't believe how much the owners have bent thus far. Sticking in things they said would never be considered before. They are trying everything to make a partnership with the players. From an increased minumum wage, to lowering UFA. Profit sharing as well. All this while they get bashed by the PA every second day.

Take your PA goggles off people and realize how far the NHL is bending for their employees.
To answer your claim of generosity:
1) Once the cap is in, there will be no way of removing it in future negotiatons, and according to reports from different player reps the NHLPA guaranteed their proposal also.

2) The only major bonuses are if the young player was to win he Hart, Vezina, or Selke. Slim chances at these awards. However this portion is the least of the players worries.

3) That "superb" entry level maximum is above the 100 qualifying offer. So what is the stop the teams from giving the max to a player and then qualifying him at 75% for his next contract. What is his recourse, well he can't hold out as the NHL has taken that tactic, maybe he'll go play in Europe which I'm sure would make all the fans that the NHL is looking out for very happy.

4) First of all in their proposal the NHL has the right to totally do away with arbitration whenever it wants by lowering the ufa age. When teams are at the cap and the player wins his arbitration, what will happen? The team will either walk away from the player, get rid of other players, or try to trade him for a player making less money. Another "huge" wins for the fans, right.

5) Wow a whole year, the players are lucky they didn't offer 2 months. When you are drafted at 17 or 18 and are stuck with the same organization until age 30 forgive the players if they don't jump at the extra year.

6) How many players does this affect a dozen. Whoopee!!!!

7) Fair, how about adding what the NHL wants most and that is linkage. First off all the numbers quoted 32 to 42 million include additional player costs such as medical and insurance, bringing the true salary cap to 30 to 40 million. Now assume because of the NHL's lockout that revenues drop 50 percent next year. Which is not to far fetched. Now the cap is at 16 to 21 million less the 2 million insurance and medical costs, so you are at 14 to 19 million. And you wonder why the players don't jump at that!!!!!!

8) We'll make our cap and to curb spending even more we'll add your luxury tax to our cap. This is sort of like adding the 24 percent giveback by the players to every hard cap proposal. The players want a tax not a cap and definitely not both.

9) Hard to believe that a league that is claiming millions of losses now assumes their will be any profit at all. This kicks in at 110 million dollars of profit, which the way Bettman has grown the game should occur in the year 2150.

10) Again no info on revenue sharing from the grand wizard Gary, its all we'll look into or we'll share a little. How about their last proposal where the playof teams would share their revenue with the non playoff teams The Flames and Lightning would share their playoff revenue with the Rangers and Blackhawks. Another brilliant idea.

11) Befire you audit you still have to define what you consider as revenues, the Blackhawks don't consider luxury boxes to be hockey revenue and the Bruins don't consider concession sales. I could go on and on. You could have a million auditors but you need to define the parameters first.

12) I guess the players will have more say then the GM assembly line workers that make GM's cars. One true concession by management, which by the way costs them nothing.

13) The owners make a majority of their money in the playoffs. They realize that they need to have a season and are tempting the players with a paycheck. Here's a question, why aren't players paid for the playoffs to begin with?

Bending? The NHL is as rigid now as it was when it offered one sheet of paper with 8 different systems each described by two sentences. The only group that is actually negotiating is the players. They make a good faith offer and the NHL takes that offer and adds it to its cap. The 24 percent to start and the 24 percent and the luxury tax in the last proposal. Now how anybody can say that the "NHL is being very, very, generous." They either don't know the facts or are blinded by the NHL's relentless propoganda machine.

robcav is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 11:53 PM
  #11
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckmatch
Those things can be negotiated, I've said this all along, and I'll say it again, if the PA can at least talk about linkage, the NHL will concede on many other issues. For example, UFA age, Arbitration being brought back in the deal for good, getting rid of maximum 3 year contracts, oh, and here's a big one, maybe the PA can even get the hard cap up to 45 or 47 million, which would guarantee them more than 54% of league revenues.

This offer is a good starting point, and it fixes systemic issues in the game, and would ensure the overall health and economic prosperity of the NHL as a business. The players could also snag a Franchise Player stipulation that would allow teams to label one of their players a Franchise Player who's salary would not count against a cap, which would please the high end guys too.

The PA has to be moronic not to see this, if they discuss linkage, they can come out of this better off than the NBA players, and the NFLPA, which is a HUGE moral victory for them, considering that both of those leagues, the NFL in particular are a lot healthier financially than the NHL, and are at least able to feasibly support their player costs.
I agree on the whole. The PA needs to give into a linkage of salaries. How that linkage is enforced is up for debate, but they need to realize the concept is a good one. The feeling I have is that whichever side gives in to the others' philosophy first is going to have allll the leverage on the rest of the CBA. If I were the PA, I would say 'fine I will live with linkage, but I want this this this this and this', and the NHL won't have much choice but to give in on those other issues.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 12:00 AM
  #12
robcav
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckmatch
The PA has to be moronic not to see this, if they discuss linkage, they can come out of this better off than the NBA players, and the NFLPA, which is a HUGE moral victory for them, considering that both of those leagues, the NFL in particular are a lot healthier financially than the NHL, and are at least able to feasibly support their player costs.
First of all the NFL players get about 64 percent of revenue not the 54 percent the NHL is offering and the players want more items such as stadium naming rights added to their percentage. The NBA is playing under a soft cap where teams can sign their own free agents and have a variety of exemptions to exceed the cap, so how will the NHL come out ahead.

The players will never accept linkage, after this lockout is over, revenues will drop perhaps 30 percent, perhaps 50 percent. If you accept linkage the cap will drop the same amount. This is why the NHLPA will never accept linkage. The reason for this revenue drop....the Owners Lockout. So Bettman and the owners, seemingly on the verge of cancelling a season to protect teams that do not belong in the league to begin with. Causea tremendous revenue loss that they want to tie the players to that. If the NHL becomes a 1 billion dollar business, how long do you think it will take them to go back to where they were. That's how long it will take the players if they accept linkage to regain a 32 to 42 million "player compensation cap"

robcav is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:26 AM
  #13
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
NHL players are watching the best contracts ever to be given out dry up. The Todd Marchants, Drapers, Jagr's etc, all money that will be gone. There is going to be a tremendous amount of bitterness when this is over and the players are no further ahead. When the NHL resumes in 2006-2007 it will be two large paychecks gone and for who? For what? Its a battle they cannot win and even if franchises fold as some have suggested , will that be something for the PA to hold onto as a victory- lost jobs? What a victory that will be.( I go on record as saying no franchises will be lost but i am not nostradamus and do not really know what will happen.) What a mess, sad sorry mess. I hate the thought of it.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:33 AM
  #14
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,331
vCash: 500
BRODEUR, MADDEN FIRMLY BEHIND UNION

February 6, 2005 -- The NHL season all-but-officially obliterated, two of the game's most outspoken players say the union doesn't need a vote to condemn the league's salary cap plan.


"Looking at the offers [the league] made, we know where we stand," Devils goalie Martin Brodeur told The Post.
"To be brutally honest, there's nothing to vote on. Their offer is simply unacceptable," John Madden said.

Read on : http://newyorkpost.com/sports/devils/39986.htm

Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:41 AM
  #15
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robcav
First of all the NFL players get about 64 percent of revenue not the 54 percent the NHL is offering and the players want more items such as stadium naming rights added to their percentage. The NBA is playing under a soft cap where teams can sign their own free agents and have a variety of exemptions to exceed the cap, so how will the NHL come out ahead.

The players will never accept linkage, after this lockout is over, revenues will drop perhaps 30 percent, perhaps 50 percent. If you accept linkage the cap will drop the same amount. This is why the NHLPA will never accept linkage. The reason for this revenue drop....the Owners Lockout. So Bettman and the owners, seemingly on the verge of cancelling a season to protect teams that do not belong in the league to begin with. Causea tremendous revenue loss that they want to tie the players to that. If the NHL becomes a 1 billion dollar business, how long do you think it will take them to go back to where they were. That's how long it will take the players if they accept linkage to regain a 32 to 42 million "player compensation cap"
I back you comments in the last few posts ..

I just do not understand how people think the NHLPA can sign this ..

The Linkage is a Deal killer and a non starter ..because we all know what is going to happen to revenue due to this lockout ..

Revenue Down Down Down

Combine that with the talk of a shortened regular season from 82 to 70 games .. Result Revenue DOWN

In order to bring back fans in small markets and non hockey markets .. What will happen .. Ticket prices coming down Result Revenue DOWN

All these things and many more will drive the Cap figure Down Down Down

This just is not a deal that is even remotely possible of being accepted nor should it for the good of the game IMO .,,

Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:48 AM
  #16
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
I do not understand your logic. Revenues are going to go down but no way will players go for less money. So would 80% of revenues suit you? Not to link revenue to their salaries as i know that is a no no.They would not play under a 100 million dollar cap as we have heard.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:01 AM
  #17
One Less Louise
Dale Weise it !
 
One Less Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 24,580
vCash: 500
I think that both the NHLPA's last offer and the NHL's one are deals that could be workable with a little twitching.

It's a little mind boggling to see what those guys are doing out there. Even moreso if there's any truth to the rumours that the players are willing to accept a fixated hard cap instead of a floating one linked to revenues.

I'm not convinced that what either side is doing worth cancelling the season. I'd compare this to two countries menacing each other with atomic bombs. When the bombs are launched, who cares who has won the war ?

There's got to be something that could work for both sides RIGHT NOW. And maybe the deal that would work now won't make sense anymore when the season is canceled.

I'm growing increasingly frustrated with both sides non-willingness to reach a deal.

And this was my last post on the business of hockey board until they're ready to sign a deal. I'm not a business/stock market/accounting/law fan. I'm a hockey fan. This is simply not the reason why I joined those boards.

Oh and one last thing : damn the owners and players to the nine hells for their stubborness. :mad:

One Less Louise is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:05 AM
  #18
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
I do not understand your logic. Revenues are going to go down but no way will players go for less money. So would 80% of revenues suit you? Not to link revenue to their salaries as i know that is a no no.They would not play under a 100 million dollar cap as we have heard.
What suits me is not important ... I am just a fan .. but when I look at the current offer from the NHL ..I can see why it has no chance of being accepted from a players point of view.

Those figures are actually propaganda figures and gross totals to confuse the average Joe Public ..

TSN had this on the other night that those $32 - 38 mil figures that the NHL is floating in its proposal also include player benefits to the team (including Insurance for contracts, Medical, Dental, payroll taxes etc etc ) Figures that cost teams $ 2 -3 mil on average

They showed a true chart of what would happen if Revenues tied to Cap effect would be based on an expected decline of 10%, 20% and 30%


Pro Ownership Brian Burke claimed are very real based on fallout from the lockout and reduced schedule.

The actual hard figures with a 25 - 30% decease would put every teams salary in the range of 20.8 min and 26.7 max on player salaries per team in REAL FIGURES ..which is based on 55% of revenues ..


If you believe that you can build and feild a competitive team based on that go right ahead ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:10 AM
  #19
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
What suits me is not important ... I am just a fan .. but when I look at the current offer from the NHL ..I can see why it has no chance of being accepted from a players point of view.

Those figures are actually propaganda figures and gross totals to confuse the average Joe Public ..

TSN had this on the other night that those $32 - 38 mil figures that the NHL is floating in its proposal also include player benefits to the team (including Insurance for contracts, Medical, Dental, payroll taxes etc etc ) Figures that cost teams $ 2 -3 mil on average

They showed a true chart of what would happen if Revenues tied to Cap effect would be based on an expected decline of 10%, 20% and 30%


Pro Ownership Brian Burke claimed are very real based on fallout from the lockout and reduced schedule.

The actual hard figures with a 25 - 30% decease would put every teams salary in the range of 20.8 min and 26.7 max on player salaries per team in REAL FIGURES ..which is based on 55% of revenues ..


If you believe that you can build and feild a competitive team based on that go right ahead ..
I see what you are saying but 55% is 55% no matter how much revenue is coming in. So the players get paid according to the revenue streams and if its less its less. Are you saying the league needs to go to 65%? 75? Do you see that happening?

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:24 AM
  #20
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
I see what you are saying but 55% is 55% no matter how much revenue is coming in. So the players get paid according to the revenue streams and if its less its less. Are you saying the league needs to go to 65%? 75? Do you see that happening?
Well owners currently claim that Salaries are at 75% of their costs .. To me that would mean your 75% you mentioned would be exactly what the NHL has right now ..

So to go to Linkage and then offer what the current CBA already had really wouldn't make sense to me anyways.. other then that is first year only and year after year as Revenues decrease . So that the ownerhips loses money in the the first 3 seasons but then recovers those in the last 3 of a CBA deal when now linkage has driven the Hard cap % to say 40 - 45% of revenue .. but that is high risk as you never truely know what fans will do ..

Lets take a real life scenario and apply it to my previous post about decining revenues ..

"The actual hard figures with a 25-30% decease would put every teams salary in the range of 20.8 min and 26.7 max on player salaries per team in REAL FIGURES ..which is based on 55% of revenues .. "

Lets use the Canucks


First Bertuzzi signed a multi year long term deal at $ 7.2 million if we take off the 24% rollback = $ 5.45 million/season

So we take the high $ 26.7 million MINUS (-) Bertuzzi ($5.45) = 21.2 million for the remaining 22 players under contract.

Which works out to a little under 1 million per player remaining .. Rookie max's are 850 K so teams can employ lots of these types

... and as long as Naslund who's contract expires in a few months and Jovo and Ohlund and Morrison in the future are all willing to accept contracts in around the $ 1 million/season range, which is very close to high draft picks would make ironically.

but pretty hard to imagine that these key players of today will play for that... NO??

If its okay with them .. then its okay with me ..

If anyone believes this is a market for players in the NHL then fine.

I am a little more sceptical that players should be forced to do it.

AND that is Best Case Senario at a drop of only 30% in revenue with a linkage of 55% based on last seasons revenue totals ..


Last edited by Mess: 02-07-2005 at 02:29 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:31 AM
  #21
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Well owners currently claim that Salaries are at 75% of their costs .. To me that would mean your 75% you mentioned would be exactly what the NHL has right now .. So to go to Linkage and then offer what the current CBA already had really wouldn't make sense other then that is first year and year after year as Revenues decrease so that the ownerhips losses money in the the first 3 seasons but then recovers those in the last 3 of a CBA deal when now linkage has driven the Hard cap % to say 40 -45% of revenue .. but that is high risk as you never truely know what fans will do ..

Lets take a real life scenario and apply it to my previous post about decining revenues ..

"The actual hard figures with a 25-30% decease would put every teams salary in the range of 20.8 min and 26.7 max on player salaries per team in REAL FIGURES ..which is based on 55% of revenues .. "

Lets use the Canucks


First Bertuzzi signed a multi year long term deal at $ 7.2 million if we take off the 24% rollback = $ 5.45 million/season

So we take the high $ 26.7 million MINUS (-) Bertuzzi ($5.45) = 21.2 million for the remaining 22 players under contract.

Which works out to a little under 1 million per player remaining .. Rookie max's are 850 K so teams can employ lots of these types

... and as long as Naslund who's contract expires in a few months and Jovo and Ohlund and Morrison in the future are all willing to accept contracts in around the $ 1 million/season range, which is very close to high draft picks would make ironically.

but pretty hard to imagine that these key players of today will play for that... NO??

If its okay with them .. then its okay with me ..

If anyone believes this is a market for players in the NHL then fine.

I am a little more sceptical that players should be forced to do it.

AND that is Best Case Senario at a drop of only 30% in revenue with a linkage of 55% based on last seasons revenue totals ..
To make it work it seems to me you may have to grant exceptions for portions of existing contracts. And when the final albatross of Yashin's is done with then the scale should be balanced although top dollar may be 4 or 5 million. It won't be easy but it may be the only way.

SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 02:43 AM
  #22
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 72,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
To make it work it seems to me you may have to grant exceptions for portions of existing contracts. And when the final albatross of Yashin's is done with then the scale should be balanced although top dollar may be 4 or 5 million. It won't be easy but it may be the only way.
Well that may be true that NHL players not even drafted yet or a few years down the road when drafted first get 850 K for the first 4 years of an entry level contract and then get raises after that ..

but this market correcting itself really means that the stars of today as we know them the Sakic and Sundin's would all have to be gone in the NEW CBA ..

The biggest problem as I see it will be that this deal is for 6 years ... The NHLPA will see that the stars of yesterday where forced into early retirement and the new stars like Ovechkin and Crosby will complain that the 2 mil they are making in the NEW NHL fails in comparison to the Stars of the NBA, NFL, and MLB in percentage ..

So what are they doing to do .NHLPA STRIKE .. We will have this same BS going on in 6 years and now from the other side refusing to play until they get there $ 5 -6 million ..

We the fans will have gone through 6 years of constant lower Salary Caps , meaning fewer stars and more fillers per team and a really bad product and entertainment. Fans in small or non-hockey markets do not have fan bases now, so how is this product going to entice them. And the former Big Market teams that have been forced into revenue sharing to keep these team alive are going to get frustrated becasue this new rules that cater to the weakest teams really hurts big markets that are suppose to cary them .

Then just to realize it didn't work at right back to square one again ..

That is the way I see and LINKAGE system and the final outcome .. IF THE PLAYERS SIGNED THIS DEAL ..


Last edited by Mess: 02-07-2005 at 02:49 AM.
Mess is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 04:51 AM
  #23
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
- arbitratration deferal by 105% offer. bogus.
Why is it bogus? It allows *both* sides to delay things if they wish. If the GM thinks the player simply had an above average year, he can delay and see if the player can maintain that level of performance next year. This can help prevent one year wonders from getting huge arbitration deals.

Similarly, if the player feels he had an off year and can do better next year, then *he* can delay the GM taking him to arbitration. Deferral can't be done on players leaving the entry level system, so it's not unfair there either.

Quote:
- ability to completely remove arbitration by lowering uFA age. since its solely at the NHL's discression, its BS.
Two years of unrestricted free agency is a pretty damn good price to get for giving up arbitration. That's two years of *prime* hockey for players. UFA status is the big carrot, way better to get than arbitration for a player.

Quote:
- max 3 year contracts. this is an end around guranteed deals. typical lawyer bs.
What? This prevents long term deals. Period. It has *nothing* do with guaranteed contracts.

Quote:
- 14 day signing period. not fair for team or player, especially considering the other controls the team will gain
It's not a 14 day signing period. It's 14 days after training camp has opened. Players and GM's have *months* to come to an agreement. This is simply a deadline, and it applies *equally* to both sides. You think Calgary might freak out a bit as the deadline is coming, and Iginla isn't signed yet? They know that they're sunk without him, and will be damn sure to offer a fair deal. Similarly, Jarome will see that the deadline is approaching, and he's risking missing the entire season if he plays too hard to get.

This is an eminently fair process that will *ensure* that both sides are offering their best deals as the deadline approaches.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 06:09 AM
  #24
RangerBoy
HOPE & CHANGE
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 37,111
vCash: 500
Bump it up to 58% with linkage

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 07:01 AM
  #25
Strazzobosco
Registered User
 
Strazzobosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
Uhm.. you're forgetting something else that's relatively significant... 24 % rollback on top of that... along with the fact that they just tacted on the luxury tax inside the cap they previously suggested. 300,000$ minimum? That helps noone. No one is making that little. If you look at the proposal, the owners made no concessions. That's part of bargaining you know. You have to realize the 6 offers they made at the beginning, they were all better than this one! This not bargaining in good faith.

Strazzobosco 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 02:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.