trying to be realistic here, I'm the Union, and I go with one last, take-it or leave-it offer, and here it is (general outline, other details they can figure out). It's a combination luxury tax/hard cap. A combination min/max payroll. The min. being $35 million (something I believe the League has proposed; don't know how they get there, but they can figure it out since the NHL proposed it). A tax system's that's 50% between $40-45 million; 75% from $45 to the 50 million max. One player can be designated 'franchise' and be excluded from the hard cap, but not from the luxury tax. Technically, a team could have about a $60 million payroll, which would cost them about $13.75 million in taxes (if it's spread amongst the five worse-off teams, that's nearly $3 million each - if three teams do it, it's enough for a very high-priced UFA for each team, or, it's nice to have going to the bottom line). There would need to be some form of revenue sharing; someone else can work out those details too. Contraction should be an option, but it isn't today, so I'm not even talking about it. I thought about going 75% from 45-50 million, then 100% from $50-a max of $55 - but thought that would create too much of a range of salaries.
Fletch, it sounds very reasonable, and is a solution which would address the have nots need for cash. If you can come up with this, why can't these so called experts figure it out? Nobody would look like they caved in in this scenario either.
both sides are too stubborn. It's like they're not bargaining with each other, but themselves (which is why the NHLPA hasn't given anything new; the League's come up with two or three new ideas, but all are basically the same, and the NHLPA has sat on the sidelines listening).
Unfortunately, your solution only works for teams that have enough revenues to reach a payroll of $35 million and still be profitable. Since this labor dispute is about teams that don't have enough revenue to reach that amount, ownership would turn it down without comment.
On the other hand, we would see a much stronger league under this system. Less teams, but much better hockey.
but, the NHL proposed a system that has similiar lower thresholds. How they got there, I don't know, but I'm assuming that they can still get there.
True (I think it was about $32 million), but we all know that the Nashville's and Carolina's of the league have been losing money with lower payrolls. And ownership hasn't made any attempt to factor in the probability that revenues will be significantly less for a least several years after this mess ends--although their latest proposal (the one where a salary cap is triggered 5 minutes after play resumes) shows they are at least aware of it.
If and when the NHL resumes play, I suspect there will be several fewer teams.
I came to the conclusion yesterday that in many ways we've been taken in by what has been said in / leaked to the public. The sides have appeared stubborn, but I now conclude that it has mostly been posturing and positioning in the past months and the key point has always been (and I say this in hindsight) the declaration of a cancellation point.
If you look at the negotiating process between two sides who are looking to get the best possible deal they can, then you need a lot of pressure/risk before either side is willing to come in with their final offers. It's kind of like playing poker on a grander scale.
I have come to the conclusion that there is a high likelihood that a deal will get done in the next day or so and we will be surprised at the compromise based on what has been said in public (just no idea who will be compromising).
Take my neo-optimism any way you want, but I do believe there will be a deal.
I personally have thought (and think have said in here) that much of this is posturing and each thinks they have leverage going into the 'cancellation point' (although I've never used that term). Problem is, Bettman thought that the Union would break; that many would say 'nuff's enough and let's get on with it. Goodenow thought that the 50-60% of teams that actually need hockey would start to pressure Bettman and the other clubs to start the season because of the irreparable demage being done to the game, and thus their gate receipts. Neither has happened, much to each's chagrin. Goodenow, I believe, further feels that if the League were to declare an impasse, it a) would not be granted as Goodenow would say that the have not been dealing in good faith, which may be a reason for no counter-proposals to the League's proposals and/or b) an impasse and subsequently scab players would be a disaster, as 2,500 fill Carolina's arena and the Garden is lined-up with nearly 5K. Bettman further feels that players, especially fringe and young players, need the money, and they outnumber the vets and higher wage earners who can sweat this out a bit. I read a bidy on Goodenow in the Times yesterday...good article; I've actually come to like the blue-collar guy who grew up in Detroit, idolized Gordie Howe (no duh, eh?), played in juniors and college, and just has one of those stories you like.
In the end, you're right, it's a game of poker. The outcome, of course, is unknown. I do hope you're right and we'll see hockey, as even though a 28-game schedule sucks, the playoffs should be great, and the draft would be less tainted. I do not think Bettman, however, will have a job for a long time.
That is the type of deal that has been the best option all along and I have been talking about that deal on the Business board for a while. Problem is both sides have to give in for that system to be agreed upon, and so far both sides have been so caught up in posturing that neither has thought about giving in.
Until this weekend of course, with Daly's comments that the NHL will move off of it's linkage stance. If that is 100% true, which it might not be, but if it is than it is the PA's turn to give a little. Goodenow needs to accept a hard cap and just be glad that it's not tied to revenues. As long as it is reasonable it won't have too much of an affect on any of the players.