So many must think the old CBA worked

[Mess]

Originally Posted by mooseOAK

But the NHLPA hasn't been negotiating off of it. They have it out there as their best and only offer but in any negotiating procedure your first offer is never your best one.

If the season gets cancelled then that proposal is basically useless because there are going to be so many players out there without contracts a 24% rollback on nothing is still nothing.

The owners want a 1-way street CBA not 2-way like a collective bargaining agreement is intended ..

The owners want to tie the players to the revenue stream that the owners have full control over from the business side (Ticket prices, Marketing, TV contracts, Merchadise, Parking, Concession post lockout fallout) and want no player involvement, other than the ability to lower their salaries if they make poor decisions which end up Negative or lost Revenue ..

The owners would reject any NHLPA proposal like I suggested about reverse triggers because they ** Do not want to be Policed by the PA **.

I firmly believe that a mutual agreement should have controls in place that not only protect the Owners against the ceilings amounts but the players against the basement amounts .. They are just as important.

In the NHL proposal you can't spend more then X amount on player salaries or you get fined in the form or draft picks and $$$ but should Wirtz and Jacobs not meet minimum bottom range requirement surprisingly nothing.

Big market teams are expected to Revenue Share with the small markets, but not only have the 30 owners never agreed on that to this date, the NHL has not even figured it out at this stage according to Brian Burke and his "Shame on them" speech, as he said...While it is not a CBA issue .. the players want to know that they are not the only ones trying to solve the problem .. so no Owner discussion also leada to no Revenue Sharing Document and no Owner partnership, but a 55% partnership is required from the players or you don't get paid at all .. 1-way street ..

1-way NHL proposal in a 2-way process will only eventually lead to 1-way conclusion .. and the NHL will never be the same .. IMO

PS

Think about your last line 24% of nothing and what that means .. It means that the players are not willing to give the owners the 24% to put in their pockets as profit ..

They are saying we will take nothing instead of signing a 1-way CBA deal and Owners should give that money we would have gotten back to our loyal Fans from where it came ..

[Mess]

Originally Posted by Dar

You mean the NHL hasn't been negotiating off it. The closest the NHL has come is to include the 24% in their original offer and they'll compromise by maybe including a luxury tax within the frame work of their hard cap. Why would the PA bring forth a new stricter offer only to have the NHL just add them to their own offer. Because, that's what's happened so far.

That is so true on lots of accounts ..

The NHLPA proposes a 24% rollback instead of a Cap solution and the NHL says "THANKS Great Idea" and adds in to their Proposal and returns with a counter proposal that includes how about 35% for the Star players more CAPs in the solution ..

The NHLPA proposes that entry level salaries be reduced from 1.25 mil to 850 K for rookies on a 3 year deal with reduced bonus structures ...The NHL say "THANKS Great Idea" and adds in to their Proposal and returns with a counter proposal that says how about 4 years mandatory instead of 3 and NO Bonuses at all ..

The NHLPA proposes 2 way arbitration so that the Owners and Players are accountable for on Ice performance .. The NHL say "THANKS Great Idea" and add the option to bump a player that just came off a career year so that he will not be rewarded for his performance financially, hoping of course that he will not repeat & the deal killer if at any time we on a whim decide to lower UFA to 28 then ALL PLAYER ARBITRATION RIGHTS are removed as is the whole process of arbitration.. Meaning that a player is drafted at 18 and at the complete mercy of the NHL team until he turns 28, with no course of action at all ..

The NHLPA proposes a Revenue sharing plan that based on the figures given would make all teams profitable .. but ...we will look after that ourselves ..We have not yet felt the need to come up with a meaningful Revenue Sharing plan among the Owners to form a partnership ..but how about we link you guys at 55% of Revenue for Life and form a partnership with the NHLPA .. However we are not willing to open the books nor do we want your input in how the business is run .. Now that we came up with this idea .. lets make it mandatory and any future CBA discussions ..

The NHLPA proposes a luxury tax system that starting at 42 million will have fines and penalties that will curb Big Market spending and provide income to the smaller markets as revenue .. The NHL returns "THANKS Great Idea" .. but lets set the ceiling at $42 million prohibiting even $1 dollar to exceed that from your plan ..

The NHLPA proposes a 100% qualifying offer requirement for contracts below a certain amount and 0% above for the richer players as RFA ..to but an drag on automatic increases of the past at 110% below $5 million.. The NHL returns "THANKS Great Idea" .. How about we make that number 75% of what you made the current year and what the heck lets not play favourites same 25% reduction across the board for every player should we want to ..

etc ..

Result : THE NHLPA DECLINES YOUR MORE THEN GENEROUS OFFER

NHL ACTION : OKAY

NHL COUNTER PROPOSAL : How about we start with your proposal for the First few hours or until any of these TRIGGERS are fired most of which will go off immediately (which ever comes first), at which time we switch to our NHL PROPOSAL that you have already rejected twice ..

Result : THE NHLPA DECLINES YOUR MORE THEN GENEROUS OFFER

NHL ACTION: OKAY

NHL : NHLPA you come up with more suggestions or should I say compromises to find middle ground that we can incorporate into our proposal back to you again after putting our own flavour to .. oh and by the way ..don't forget our next proposal will guarantee to include LINKAGE and a HARD CAP or its no deal ..

NHL : I just don't understand why the NHLPA is not getting back to us ..

[Dar]

Originally Posted by The Messenger

.
.
.

Pretty Much.

[Falon]

I HAVE IT!!! I have the solution. If the owners are truly as united as they say they are. Ask the players for a 40% rollback on salaries. That way, if the players accept it, it solves alot of money problems each team is having and the ball is back in the owners court to keep in touch with their finances. They can have an unwritten salary cap. The ownership would have to agree that they will not let the salaries get out of control again. If they can do that, the lockout would end and we would have hockey back.

[mooseOAK*]

Originally Posted by Dar

You mean the NHL hasn't been negotiating off it. The closest the NHL has come is to include the 24% in their original offer and they'll compromise by maybe including a luxury tax within the frame work of their hard cap. Why would the PA bring forth a new stricter offer only to have the NHL just add them to their own offer. Because, that's what's happened so far.

The NHLPA can come back and say, okay, if you the NHL want those other things we will reduce the rollback to a lower number. Or, something like that. The whole negotiating process should include asking for one thing and giving up something else. The NHLPA hasn't done that so far and they need to in order to end this thing.

True, but right away players will have a lower salary in which to compare their play.

I'm not insinuating that the players offer as it stands will work, I don't believe it will. However, give it some teeth and a lot of the problems will be answered. They'll never all be solved, but then, the NHL offer doesn't either, even from the owner's point of view.

The owners were trying to give it some teeth, i.e. keep the rollback from rolling to the front in a short amount of time and being back here again.

[mooseOAK*]

Originally Posted by The Messenger

The owners want a 1-way street CBA not 2-way like a collective bargaining agreement is intended ..

The owners want to tie the players to the revenue stream that the owners have full control over from the business side (Ticket prices, Marketing, TV contracts, Merchadise, Parking, Concession post lockout fallout) and want no player involvement, other than the ability to lower their salaries if they make poor decisions which end up Negative or lost Revenue ..

The owners would reject any NHLPA proposal like I suggested about reverse triggers because they ** Do not want to be Policed by the PA **.

I firmly believe that a mutual agreement should have controls in place that not only protect the Owners against the ceilings amounts but the players against the basement amounts .. They are just as important.

In the NHL proposal you can't spend more then X amount on player salaries or you get fined in the form or draft picks and $$$ but should Wirtz and Jacobs not meet minimum bottom range requirement surprisingly nothing.

Big market teams are expected to Revenue Share with the small markets, but not only have the 30 owners never agreed on that to this date, the NHL has not even figured it out at this stage according to Brian Burke and his "Shame on them" speech, as he said...While it is not a CBA issue .. the players want to know that they are not the only ones trying to solve the problem .. so no Owner discussion also leada to no Revenue Sharing Document and no Owner partnership, but a 55% partnership is required from the players or you don't get paid at all .. 1-way street ..

1-way NHL proposal in a 2-way process will only eventually lead to 1-way conclusion .. and the NHL will never be the same .. IMO

PS

Think about your last line 24% of nothing and what that means .. It means that the players are not willing to give the owners the 24% to put in their pockets as profit ..

They are saying we will take nothing instead of signing a 1-way CBA deal and Owners should give that money we would have gotten back to our loyal Fans from where it came ..

So what if the owners want a CBA that is in their own best interest. Isn't that what the NHLPA wants also?

The key thing is to find some middle ground and if the players want luxury taxes and minimum team payrolls then they should submit a counter proposal that outlines these things.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by Falon

I HAVE IT!!! I have the solution. If the owners are truly as united as they say they are. Ask the players for a 40% rollback on salaries. That way, if the players accept it, it solves alot of money problems each team is having and the ball is back in the owners court to keep in touch with their finances. They can have an unwritten salary cap. The ownership would have to agree that they will not let the salaries get out of control again. If they can do that, the lockout would end and we would have hockey back.

I have a better one...

The NHL accepts the 24% rollback accross the board.

Entry level contracts maxed at $850k, bonuses to be maxed out according to draft position:
Selections 1-10 max 1.2 million in bonuses.
Selections 10-20 max 1 million in bonuses.
Selections 20-30 max 900k in bonuses.
2nd Round Picks max 750k in bonuses.
3rd Round Picks max 500k in bonuses.
All subsequent picks max 250k in bonuses.

Salary arbitration may be induced by either the players or owners. A player may only select to go to arbitration once in his career, likewise a player may only be brought to arbitration by an NHL team once in his career.
Arbitrators will be given two different figures to work with, the players offer and the teams offer, arbitrator may only select one or the other, no in between. An arbitrator can only award a contract for the maximum term of 2 years.

Restricted Free Agents rights are retained by the team on a salary/% scale:
Players making more than $1.5 million above the league average are retained by the club offering an 85% qualifying offer,
Players making between $1 million and $1.5 million above the league average will require a 90% qualifying offer.
Players making between 500k and $1 million above the league average will require a 95% qualifying offer.
Players making over 800k but less than 500k over the league average will require a 100% qualifying offer.
Players making under 800k require 105% qualifying offer.

No minimum salary (if a player wants to play for 50k then so be it).

A luxury tax system to be put in place effective the beginning of the 2005-2006 season.
Teams with NHL salaries between $38 million and $42 million pay .50c on the dollar for every dollar spent above $38 million.
Teams with NHL salaries between $42 million and $45 million pay .50 for the amount above $38 million up to $42 million, and .80 for each dollar amount spent between $42 million and $45 million.
Teams with NHL salaries above $45 million will include the previous two provisions and also pay $1 for every dollar spent above $45 million.

Teams who select to have a salary range in excess of $50 million shall forfeit 1 draft position for every $2 million above $50 million. eg. A team with a payroll of $56 million will drop 3 draft positions.

Teams with a payroll below $30 million will forfeit 1 draft position for every $2 million below the salary floor.

A revenue sharing system will be put in place.
On top of the luxury tax paid into the system by teams, 10% of all gate revenues generated for playoff games will be paid into a master fund.

The money will be dispersed as follows.
Master fund to be divided by number of teams below $40 million in NHL salaries.
Each team that had total NHL salaries between $30 million and $40 million will be given their equal share.
Teams below $30 million will be given their share less 20%.
The 20% is equally divided amongst the teams between $40 million and $50 million in total NHL salaries.

The Unrestricted Free Agency will be lowered from 31 to 29.

Just a start.