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.

TSN/The Source Reports Proposal Details

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2005, 12:08 PM
  #1
Jobu
Registered User
 
Jobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
TSN/The Source Reports Proposal Details

Can NHL, NHLPA bridge the gap?


TSN.ca Staff



2/15/2005

Now that the NHL Players' Association has gotten over the ideological hump of living with a "salary cap," players are mulling over the rival concepts presented yesterday by the league and the union.

Details of both proposals have been posted on The Source, the NHLPA's secure website for players.

Sources say the NHLPA proposal is as follows:



- A cap of $52 million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated. The luxury tax rates would be 25 per cent on $40-44 million; 50 per cent on $44-48 million; 75 per cent on $48-52 million and 150 per cent on $52-$57.2 million.



Sources say the NHL proposal is as follows:



Related Info
NHLPA offers cap, NHL rejects it

- A hard cap of $40 million, with a 50 per cent luxury tax on $34-40 million.



As for the possibility of negotiations, sources on the NHLPA side are suggesting the union will only negotiate off the $52 million figure if the NHL presents a detailed, meaningful revenue sharing plan.



On the NHL side of the equation, sources are suggesting the league isn't prepared to go much higher than the $40 million cap figure.



So it's a matter of trying to bridge a $12 million (per team) gap with the clock running towards the league's scheduled 1 p.m. (EST) announcement to cancel the season

Jobu is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:11 PM
  #2
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 500
thoughts...

the NHLPA needs to drop the stupid "let teams exceed it by 10% 3 times in 6 years". that part is dumb and doesn't really net much extra money anyways. seems just like a barginning ploy...throw it in there so they can say "well drop this if you drop that" later on

i don't like the tax in the NHL's plan though. if you're gonna have a relatively low cap, drop the luxery tax in the proposal as well

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:11 PM
  #3
Greschner4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobu
Can NHL, NHLPA bridge the gap?


TSN.ca Staff



2/15/2005

Now that the NHL Players' Association has gotten over the ideological hump of living with a "salary cap," players are mulling over the rival concepts presented yesterday by the league and the union.

Details of both proposals have been posted on The Source, the NHLPA's secure website for players.

Sources say the NHLPA proposal is as follows:



- A cap of $52 million but with provisions for teams to spend as much as 10 per cent more than that on three occasions in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated. The luxury tax rates would be 25 per cent on $40-44 million; 50 per cent on $44-48 million; 75 per cent on $48-52 million and 150 per cent on $52-$57.2 million.



Sources say the NHL proposal is as follows:



Related Info
NHLPA offers cap, NHL rejects it

- A hard cap of $40 million, with a 50 per cent luxury tax on $34-40 million.



As for the possibility of negotiations, sources on the NHLPA side are suggesting the union will only negotiate off the $52 million figure if the NHL presents a detailed, meaningful revenue sharing plan.



On the NHL side of the equation, sources are suggesting the league isn't prepared to go much higher than the $40 million cap figure.



So it's a matter of trying to bridge a $12 million (per team) gap with the clock running towards the league's scheduled 1 p.m. (EST) announcement to cancel the season
The league should just try to negotiate as much as they can off the players' offer, then accept it.

If they don't, it's the league's fault.

Greschner4 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:12 PM
  #4
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,240
vCash: 500
Good . . . if the numbers that work are $40 million then good for the league for sticking to them. I still think that they may have a million or two per team wiggle room, and a final solution could end up at $42 million, perhaps with some hard luxury taxes built in for the final five or six million of that.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:13 PM
  #5
Cloned
Sexy Genesis
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,228
vCash: 500
Wow. It's obvious now that if the League wants to get that 52 number down (before the season is cancelled, that is) they will have to incorporate some sort of revenue sharing. The real negotiations begin a day before the deadline.

Cloned is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:15 PM
  #6
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 500
i'd also say this complicates things a lot more than we were hoping. there's still a LOT that could be negotiated and a lot of stuff that could throw the whole process off

this doesn't really fill me with hope

Levitate is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:16 PM
  #7
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greschner4
The league should just try to negotiate as much as they can off the players' offer, then accept it.

If they don't, it's the league's fault.
The thing I hate the most about the lockout is .. well, the hockey not being played. The thing I hate second most is that EVERY hockey fan is CONFIDENT that they're absolutely correct about everything involved in the lockout.

kmad is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:18 PM
  #8
Cloned
Sexy Genesis
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
i'd also say this complicates things a lot more than we were hoping. there's still a LOT that could be negotiated and a lot of stuff that could throw the whole process off

this doesn't really fill me with hope
Well, they have 25 hours at this point to do something. If they can get both leaders into the same room then the negotiations should go a lot faster and it is possible that both sides have already undertaken the task of writing up other previously agreed to components of the CBA, with the language for the other parts basically templated. If that's the case, we may see some sort of provisional CBA in effect for the first little bit of the season.

Cloned is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:24 PM
  #9
Matty
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 2,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
thoughts...

the NHLPA needs to drop the stupid "let teams exceed it by 10% 3 times in 6 years". that part is dumb and doesn't really net much extra money anyways. seems just like a barginning ploy...throw it in there so they can say "well drop this if you drop that" later on
Actually, I like the concept (I just think the players need to drop the numbers a bit. But the idea of allowing a team to exceed the cap a little allows a building team to keep their talent when they reach maturity.

Matty is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:26 PM
  #10
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,205
vCash: 500
Let's not forget that they really only have to agree in principle to a deal to stay the cancellation of the season... once they do that, they bring the players back and hammer out the details before the actual start of the season.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:40 PM
  #11
bubbabalue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Croatia
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Well I'm pleasantly surprised that they are actually this close, I lost all hope last week for any kind of a season but hopefully I was wrong.

bubbabalue is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:42 PM
  #12
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 Tawnos
Let's not forget that they really only have to agree in principle to a deal to stay the cancellation of the season... once they do that, they bring the players back and hammer out the details before the actual start of the season.
To quote a moron:

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once............ shame on...............shame on you. Fool me..............you can't get fooled again.

or something like that.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:53 PM
  #13
wazee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Let's not forget that they really only have to agree in principle to a deal to stay the cancellation of the season... once they do that, they bring the players back and hammer out the details before the actual start of the season.
I read once where Bob Goodenow changed some of the things that were 'agreed to in principle' the last time so this time, the Bettman will insist the deal in finalized BEFORE the owners make any commitment to starting a season. I actually think that is a wise plan for both sides.

The players won too big the last time for the owners not to be very wary this time around.

wazee is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 12:56 PM
  #14
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazee

The players won too big the last time for the owners not to be very wary this time around.
its widely recognized that the owners won the last CBA.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:00 PM
  #15
Randy May
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO.
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Randy May Send a message via Yahoo to Randy May
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
its widely recognized that the owners won the last CBA.

dr
I disagree.

Randy May is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:01 PM
  #16
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,890
vCash: 500
*feels the noose tightening around notgoodenough's neck*

Joe T Choker is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:04 PM
  #17
Donnie D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 707
vCash: 500
The players have given on the cap, the owners must now give on the revenue sharing to make this work.

Donnie D is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:07 PM
  #18
officeglen
Registered User
 
officeglen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 3,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
its widely recognized that the owners won the last CBA.
There seems to have been a slight problem with the facts.

Please try again by pressing the refresh button on your brain.

officeglen is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:16 PM
  #19
Hecht
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
once they have a ceiling..all they need is a floor and revenue sharing and viola!

Hecht is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:19 PM
  #20
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,745
vCash: 500
^ Not exactly...What about the rookie contracts? Drafts? CHL?

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:21 PM
  #21
wazee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
its widely recognized that the owners won the last CBA.

dr
Widely recognized? By whom? Please explain?

Because the only thing I remember the owners 'winning' on in the last CBA was keeping the UFA age relatively high...and they even gave up a year (or was it two) on that...

wazee is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:24 PM
  #22
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazee
Widely recognized? By whom? Please explain?

Because the only thing I remember the owners 'winning' on in the last CBA was keeping the UFA age relatively high...and they even gave up a year (or was it two) on that...
I think he means that at the time the CBA was signed (1994) everyone thought the owners had won, and that the players had caved. History proved otherwise, of course, but at the time, it was generally considered to have been a "victory" for the owners.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:36 PM
  #23
wazee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
I think he means that at the time the CBA was signed (1994) everyone thought the owners had won, and that the players had caved. History proved otherwise, of course, but at the time, it was generally considered to have been a "victory" for the owners.
I do not remember it that way. Sure, both sides declared victory as is common after negotiations. There was the usually spin from both sides. However, I do not remember that it was commonly accepted that the owners 'won'. And, if my memory is faulty (which happens sometimes) and the majority opinion was that the owners 'won', what evidence was presented to make that case? What made people think the owners 'won' back in 1995?

And I mean objective people...not people like Larry Brooks who thinks the owners win so long as they can afford to wear shoes without holes in the soles.

wazee is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:37 PM
  #24
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
 
Hockeyfan02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pistivity
Country: United States
Posts: 14,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoobieDoobieDo
^ Not exactly...What about the rookie contracts? Drafts? CHL?
All that can easily be negotiated if the terms of a cap and revenue sharing are agreed upon.

I like the NHLPA's move in coming off 52 million only if there is meaningful revenue sharing. That's the only way any system is going to work. If there is a cap without revenue sharing then it doesnt help teams who are struggling to make money in that range before the cap. I dont see it as players trying to get more from the owners, I see it more as the bigger teams helping the little teams. If they want a partnership between the players then the owners are going to have to have a partnership with themselves in terms of revenue sharing. I really want to believe that these guys are finally getting close to a deal and the season is going to be saved, but I've gotten my hopes up to be crushed too many times. Like Mckenzie says I'm going to be "catiously optimistic."

Hockeyfan02 is offline  
Old
02-15-2005, 01:40 PM
  #25
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
its widely recognized that the owners won the last CBA.
No, it was widely *reported* by the pundits and analysts. Time has proven that they were absolutely dead wrong.

In looking over these proposals, I'm unsure just what we're seeing. This so-called "cap" the players ain't a cap, if it's just a tax. I'm failing to see anything that will stop the $80 million dollar teams, they were willing to spend it before.

PecaFan 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 06:40 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.