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.

NHL Willing to Negotiate with NO Linkage

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2005, 04:43 PM
  #26
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
It's nothing new. Daly said that a LONG time ago. He even said the NHL would be willing to negotiate a luxury tax at a high threshold but the union had no interest in it.

I dont remember reading that...link??

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:43 PM
  #27
OilerFan4Life
Registered User
 
OilerFan4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,645
vCash: 1991
OMG Eklund said it!!! It must be true!!!! I cant beleive some of you still go to that POC's site.

OilerFan4Life is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:43 PM
  #28
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD Jester
Yeah, so...caving then, eh?

So much for "cost certainty."
Costs will be no more than the cap times the number of teams. Can't get much more certain than that.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:44 PM
  #29
Flukeshot
Holmgren activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 187
How come I think even if this were to be true nothing would come of it. Are the owners really going to go and make another and 4th straight offer before the union does?

If so the Cap would probably be really low. Remember way back when this all begane they wanted a $31m Cap? It be another genious yet ingenuine offer as more of post-impasse posturing.

Meh, hope is for the foolish now.

Flukeshot is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
  #30
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
I dont remember reading that...link??
Consider the source, but Daly did say that on the radio yesterday. To paraphrase, he said the PA made it clear during negotiations that they would not accept a luxury tax that served as a drag on salaries.
If one chooses to think Daly is predisposed to making things up, then dismiss it. But he definitely said it.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
  #31
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,573
vCash: 500
I can see a deal right around the corner...I won't be on the boards all weekend long, I hope when I come back on Monday, we can start talking hockey instead of all this non sense, gives me a headache

417 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
  #32
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
Costs will be no more than the cap times the number of teams. Can't get much more certain than that.
you missed it, i said he didnt say it. deep breath.

i quoted the wrong post, this was a response to the eklund slam.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
  #33
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
not from his site, anyway - ive been there. he says something about an 8 year deal, first 4 years would be the players offer - if it goes over 58% then they owe the teams the money back after four years, it would be in escrow. i think the cap with no linkage sounds more reasonable to me.
I would tend to agree, a cap w/out linkage might be more palatable.

If you're the NHLPA, and IF the NHL is honest in their assertion that a cap without a linkage to revenue streams could possibly be a basis for a deal...shouldn't you at least LOOK at it?

Digger12 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:46 PM
  #34
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Why do you guys even bother anymore? The season is over.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:47 PM
  #35
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnigan
On The Score's ticker it is reporting that Bill Daly has told Steve Kouleas(sp), that the NHL is willing to negotiate a salary cap with no linkage. Both Daly and Saskins will have 1-on-1 interviews at 6ET on The Score. At least this may be some compromise on the NHL's part, but let's see how high they are willing to go with the cap.

can we get a link to this, also, is this radio or TV???

if its radio, can i hear the interviews???

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:47 PM
  #36
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
Why do you guys even bother anymore? The season is over.
quitter

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:47 PM
  #37
OilerFan4Life
Registered User
 
OilerFan4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,645
vCash: 1991
Union is dumb if they dont make one last ditch proposal, because there chances of winning in "labour" court would be greatly reduced.

OilerFan4Life is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:48 PM
  #38
Munchausen
Full Time A-hole
 
Munchausen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stuck in traffic
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Far be it from me to tell the players what to do, but no linkage is a bad deal for the players. It might take a few years, but eventually league revenues will grow and when it does they'll be missing out on their share of the money.
If they don't want to assume risk, they can't ask for rewards. Seems perfectly logical to me.

Of course, if the league revenues do grow, I suspect the players would want to raise any capped payroll in the next CBA negotiations accordingly.

Munchausen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:48 PM
  #39
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
Why do you guys even bother anymore? The season is over.
Why do you bother showing up here to tell others what they should and should not bother about?

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:49 PM
  #40
OilKiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
Why do you guys even bother anymore? The season is over.
Regardless of what has been said and what is happening now, really, these guys have another week to dick around, then a week or training camp and the season still starts on March 1st. It could still happen...but I'm not holding my breath...

OilKiller is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:49 PM
  #41
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
I would tend to agree, a cap w/out linkage might be more palatable.

If you're the NHLPA, and IF the NHL is honest in their assertion that a cap without a linkage to revenue streams could possibly be a basis for a deal...shouldn't you at least LOOK at it?
i thought the whole time this would come down to a cap minus linkage. revenues are too unpredictable to base contracts on. how do you set up the league on numbers you dont know are going to happen? then take back money from the players when they dont? just doesnt hold up, imo. either a cap with no linkage, or a strict luxury tax.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:50 PM
  #42
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,771
vCash: 500
Waitaminute...why is there even a shred of optimism around here, I thought that was only prevalent on mondays?

Did I miss a memo or something?

Digger12 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:52 PM
  #43
Hunter74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
I'm pretty sure I've heard Daly say this before, not too long ago.

Would the players listen? I doubt it at this point.

This was mentioned about a week ago on TSN. Of course though the players most likely want an abserd amount as the cap $70mil per team or something like that. While the NHL woudl most likely want a $36mil per team cap.

I dont know why the NHLPA wont agree to linkage. Why wont they agree to linkage?

I hear its b/c they dont beleive in what the owners are calling revenue. If thats the case then why wont they even negotiate with the NHL on what defines revenue and such things. They could both agree on a 3rd party accounting.auditing firm that employs forensic accountants who's job is to track the money trail. You cant hide profits from these guys. Its there jobs to be able to find everything.

Why wont they just agree to linkage. Maybe they dont like the idea that the NHL owners are in charge of makeing the league stronger and feel kinda powerless. Must be tough when your potential earning power depends on how well your employer can grow teh business and there revenues. Not that regular workign folks dont know what thats like.

The fact that the NHLPA wont even audit any NHL clubs or negotiate on what they think revenues are is pretty despicable imho. I think the players want more than there fair share of profits but dont want any part in the risk associated with business. guarantee our money wether the NHL franchises can afford it or not b/c we know you guys have other successfull business you can pay us out of.

God I hope the NHL breaks the union.

Hunter74 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:52 PM
  #44
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Let the ship sink.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:54 PM
  #45
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Chucky breakout year
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,523
vCash: 626
I just saw it on their ticker...finnigan is not blowing smoke here. It's legit.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:54 PM
  #46
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Consider the source, but Daly did say that on the radio yesterday. To paraphrase, he said the PA made it clear during negotiations that they would not accept a luxury tax that served as a drag on salaries.
If one chooses to think Daly is predisposed to making things up, then dismiss it. But he definitely said it.
Thanks for the info.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:54 PM
  #47
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman
Why do you guys even bother anymore? The season is over.
Someone must of forgottent to tell Bettman than

417 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:57 PM
  #48
davidwii
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropduster
so is linkage in place good for the owners or players? I suspect the owners based on what I am seeing but if revenues increase nicely wouldnt that be good for the players?

When the sport is flourishing...its good for both the owners and the players...aka...NFL. For the last however many years, revenue in the NFL has increased. Increased revenue = increased cap. Increased cap = More money for the players.

BUT....in a revenue starved sport like hockey, where who knows what the next year holds, its is a very possible reality that the players will have to take pay cuts year after year because revenue could be shrinking. So in a case like this, the costs for the owners are set...cuz of linkage...whereas the pay for players will shrink.

I wouldn't be suprised to see the players accept a cap without linkage NOW. Then, in however many years the CBA lasts, lets say that Hockey gets healthy again and is flourishing and the revenue stream is so great that the percentage of revenue that is going to payroll is say like 20-30%, you could see the players strike and try to fight for a Revenue Linked Cap...stating that they just want their fair share of the Profit Pie and the Greedy Owners are just being Greedy Jerks for not sharing more of the Pie...

Now that would be funny and a little bit ironic.... :lol :lol

davidwii is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:59 PM
  #49
417
Registered User
 
417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Haiti
Posts: 19,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidwii
When the sport is flourishing...its good for both the owners and the players...aka...NFL. For the last however many years, revenue in the NFL has increased. Increased revenue = increased cap. Increased cap = More money for the players.

BUT....in a revenue starved sport like hockey, where who knows what the next year holds, its is a very possible reality that the players will have to take pay cuts year after year because revenue could be shrinking. So in a case like this, the costs for the owners are set...cuz of linkage...whereas the pay for players will shrink.

I wouldn't be suprised to see the players accept a cap without linkage NOW. Then, in however many years the CBA lasts, lets say that Hockey gets healthy again and is flourishing and the revenue stream is so great that the percentage of revenue that is going to payroll is say like 20-30%, you could see the players strike and try to fight for a Revenue Linked Cap...stating that they just want their fair share of the Profit Pie and the Greedy Owners are just being Greedy Jerks for not sharing more of the Pie...

Now that would be funny and a little bit ironic.... :lol :lol
I thought about the same thing, maybe the deal is the first portion of whatever deal is reached has no linkage, and then when profits are healthier, linkage is established at whatever %, that's partnership, and fair both ways

417 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:00 PM
  #50
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Far be it from me to tell the players what to do, but no linkage is a bad deal for the players. It might take a few years, but eventually league revenues will grow and when it does they'll be missing out on their share of the money.
From my perspective, the linkage wasn’t even the worst part of the NHL's offer.

- the NHL's ability to eliminate arbitration

- the 24% rollback

- the signing deadline

- arbitration deferal

- elimination of group 5 and 6 free agency

Just to name 5.

DR


OlliMackBjugStud 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 05:56 PM.

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.