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.

February proposal vs. current speculated deal - question

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2005, 09:28 PM
  #1
Vomiting Kermit*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,562
vCash: 500
February proposal vs. current speculated deal - question

First off, I apologize if there's another thread about this.

I am confused as to which deal is better for the players... I am pro-owner, but that really has nothing to do with this question.

I just saw Glenn Healy on TV talking about how much better the current deal is for the players than the one that was offered by the NHL in February; I found that odd because Jeremy Roenick said the February proposal "beats the ****" out of the one that the players are going to sign in the next few days.

Since Healy is a massive homer and his entire argument has changed since the beginning of the lockout, I thought I would ask here for an answer.

Is the speculated deal better for the players than the NHL's 'final' offer from February?

Thanks in advance.

Vomiting Kermit* is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 09:59 PM
  #2
SerbianEagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Serbia
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 500
From all that I've read I can't see how it is? Wasn't the rumored cap in that one 45M, while this one is 36-38? Thats a 7-9M difference there. Unless he counts the free parking stuff, then maybe?

SerbianEagle is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:01 PM
  #3
FlyerFan
Registered User
 
FlyerFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
If you just looked at only the deals themselves then both deals suck for the players, just one deal will suck less than the other. However, the last gasp February season saving deal was vastly superior for the players in the sense that they would be paid for the 04-05 season instead of losing it.

FlyerFan is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:11 PM
  #4
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerbianEagle
From all that I've read I can't see how it is? Wasn't the rumored cap in that one 45M, while this one is 36-38? Thats a 7-9M difference there. Unless he counts the free parking stuff, then maybe?
The problem with that argument is that you assume that the cap number is the sole indication of what the deal means for the players. If arbitration and qualifying offers are close to the Dec 9 proposal, than it's better in those aspects than it was in February. If there is no luxury tax, like we've been hearing and there is a salary floor at 22-24 million, that's better for the players than the one in February too.

Look, I'm one of the staunchest PA supporters on this board. In no way am I declaring this anything but a complete loss for the NHLPA. However, when held up to the February deal the owners had on the table and only that deal, there is a very large chance that this deal will be better. We won't really know until the particulars of the deal are released.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:14 PM
  #5
SerbianEagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Serbia
Posts: 3,546
vCash: 500
The cap was the only thing that was obvious to me so I used that, but whatever happens. It looks like the playing field will be more leveled, and I don't mind at all if the players managed to get something for the rookies and some other benefits.

SerbianEagle is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:16 PM
  #6
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,758
vCash: 500
LOL, the rookies are getting screwed just as hard, if not harder than the rest of the PA.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:19 PM
  #7
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,903
vCash: 500
Here is all you need to know. Healy is a schill for the PA and does not want to admit he is wrong so he is probably lying and saying this deal is better. Thats my take anyway.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:21 PM
  #8
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,758
vCash: 500
You are a schill for the owners and do not want to admit you are wrong, so you are probably just making it up as you go. That's my take anyway.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:27 PM
  #9
Icey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
You are a schill for the owners and do not want to admit you are wrong, so you are probably just making it up as you go. That's my take anyway.
This is a better deal for the players, hands down. It's more that just dollars and cents and a cap. It's about the way the deal is structured. It's about how revenues are determined, and how teams report it. It's about arbitration, qualifying offers, minimum salaries, rookie contracts and buy outs. It's a lot more than just a cap number. Once anyone with half a brain reads beyond the cap number they will see that in the long run, this deal is better than the February deal.

Icey is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:33 PM
  #10
London Knights
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
The one interesting thing that I will never get is how people will blame either side for not getting a deal done in February and saving the season...what season. We have seen how much crap they had to actually go through to get a deal done. They have been going 16 hour days for a month and still have no deal. A last minute thrown together proposal was going to do this?

I am much more satisified, as should the players, in the fact that this is an actual joint proposal. The players are obviously going to lose the CBA negotiation battle, but there are going to be many more stabilizing additions that go to their benefit aswell.

London Knights is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:33 PM
  #11
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,629
vCash: 500
Pro-Owner Zombies

Here they come. Break out the shotguns.

Volcanologist is online now  
Old
07-06-2005, 10:59 PM
  #12
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
The problem with that argument is that you assume that the cap number is the sole indication of what the deal means for the players. If arbitration and qualifying offers are close to the Dec 9 proposal, than it's better in those aspects than it was in February. If there is no luxury tax, like we've been hearing and there is a salary floor at 22-24 million, that's better for the players than the one in February too.

Look, I'm one of the staunchest PA supporters on this board. In no way am I declaring this anything but a complete loss for the NHLPA. However, when held up to the February deal the owners had on the table and only that deal, there is a very large chance that this deal will be better. We won't really know until the particulars of the deal are released.
First of all:

1. Not the Feb 2 offer, which had a floor of 29.8 mil + benefits and a cap of $39 mil

2. I have been playing along with this QO bull**** too long. QO's are essentially irrelevant. They are not a starting point for negotiations. Except for the weaker players who do not drive salaries anyway, they are meaningless.

In no way is the current deal "better" for playrs.

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:10 PM
  #13
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
When this deal is done and you compare all the aspects of the 2, this deal will be better. We won't know for sure until 6 years from now...in 95 everyone thought the PA got killed with the CBA and it ended up the other way around. There are results that we can't even predict, that we won't even understand until they happen. But if you are simply comparing the 2 deals point by point, this deal is better.

The other thing is, there have been a lot of different reports. Some have reported a cap of $39.5M...I don't think it's true but if it is, than the cap number really doesn't matter because it's basically the same as the February cap even in the first year.

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:12 PM
  #14
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
This is a general comment... If the players are guaranteed a portion of the revenues, then what does it matter what the floor and the cap is for the players? For the owners, they'll want a shorter range to promote better competition, but for the players I don't see why they should care. Regardless of how much teams really spend, they'll receive as a collectivity "x%" of revenues.

As well, I find it funny that people compare a non-negociated offer to the negociated deal. If you think there was no room for negociations on the february offer you're kidding yourself. As well, another big difference which doesn't get enough talk is the hurt and damage the players have done over their own revenues between the two offers. They lost money this year and potentially in the next few as well (as revenues might have been higher in the next few seasons if this had been settled back in february).

However, it's normal for the PA shills to claim "victory" as they're trying to save face. That's always what you do after a deal is done, you try to rationalize how you got to that deal.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:17 PM
  #15
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,950
vCash: 500
Who cares who won or lost . . . I am happy . . . beyond happy . . .with what I have seen of the reported details and am ecstatic that this lockout final seems to be coming to an end.

If those of you who supported the players in this want to declare victory have at it . . . sure, pop the bubbly, throw me a brew, the players won, I graciously admit defeat for the side that I supported in this, the owners. Now lets get this party started.

Jaded-Fan is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:18 PM
  #16
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
This is a general comment... If the players are guaranteed a portion of the revenues, then what does it matter what the floor and the cap is for the players? For the owners, they'll want a shorter range to promote better competition, but for the players I don't see why they should care. Regardless of how much teams really spend, they'll receive as a collectivity "x%" of revenues.
Because your comparing it to another deal with a cap? I guess you could compare %'s, but who really knows what % the players would have gotten with the $42.5M offer?

nyr7andcounting is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:18 PM
  #17
GSC2k2*
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
This is a general comment... If the players are guaranteed a portion of the revenues, then what does it matter what the floor and the cap is for the players? For the owners, they'll want a shorter range to promote better competition, but for the players I don't see why they should care. Regardless of how much teams really spend, they'll receive as a collectivity "x%" of revenues.

As well, I find it funny that people compare a non-negociated offer to the negociated deal. If you think there was no room for negociations on the february offer you're kidding yourself. As well, another big difference which doesn't get enough talk is the hurt and damage the players have done over their own revenues between the two offers. They lost money this year and potentially in the next few as well (as revenues might have been higher in the next few seasons if this had been settled back in february).

However, it's normal for the PA shills to claim "victory" as they're trying to save face. That's always what you do after a deal is done, you try to rationalize how you got to that deal.
And ...

GSC2k2* is offline  
Old
07-06-2005, 11:43 PM
  #18
zeke
#freewilly
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 29,058
vCash: 500
Healy is a fool.

The major points of the current proposed deal are either the same or worse than the major points of the Feb.2 offer.

There are minor improvements on secondary issues....most of which could have been negotiated at the time, many of which were already given up by the NHL by the time the cancellation/non-cancellation fiasco happened.

Here's how it breaks down:

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlproposal020205.html


Quote:
LEAGUE-WIDE PLAYER COMPENSATION "RANGE"

-- The parties agree that the new Player Compensation System shall ensure that total League-wide Player Compensation in any year of the new CBA will not: (1) be below 53% of the League's revenues, or (2) exceed 55% of the League's revenues.

-- 15% of each Club's Player Payroll will automatically be escrowed every season to ensure compliance with the 55% high-end of the Player Compensation Range.

-- Accounting will be performed at the end of each League Year, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that Clubs have paid no more than the agreed upon 55% of League Revenues.

-- If NHL Clubs as a group spend less than 53% of the League's Revenues, the Clubs will be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive the agreed upon 53% of League Revenues.
This is the Linkage number.

On Feb.2 the offer was 53-55%, and now it seems they're saying 54%...which might be just semantics.

Either way, it's the same.

Also the same is the 15% escrow number.


Quote:
FLOATING TEAM PAYROLL "RANGE"

-- The parties agree that the applicable Payroll Range for each team in any given year should be representative of the League as a whole, and should not necessarily be engineered either toward the lower payroll teams as a group, or to the higher payroll teams as a group.

-- To effectuate this philosophy, the following Floating Team Payroll "Range" is being proposed.

-- For purposes of establishing the starting Team Payroll Range, each of the top five and bottom five Clubs (ranked in terms of Total Team Payroll for the 2003-04 season) will be entirely excluded from the analysis (Teams 1-5 and Teams 26-30).

-- The low-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately below the League mid-point (Teams 16-25). Using that calculation in Year 1, each Club will be obligated to spend no less than $29.8 million on Team Payroll (or $32 million in total Team Player Compensation).

-- The high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be established by averaging the Total Team Payrolls (as adjusted to reflect the 24% Salary Rollback) of the ten (10) Clubs ranked immediately above the League mid-point (Teams 6-15). Using that calculation in Year 1, no Club will be permitted to spend more than $40 million on Team Payroll (or $42.2 million in total Team Player Compensation).

-- The mid-point of the Floating Team Payroll Range will be adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes in League-wide revenue, with corresponding changes to both the low-end and the high-end of the Floating Team Payroll Range.

-- Enhanced and meaningful revenue sharing pursuant to which all 30 Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets) would be provided the ability to afford a League-representative Team Payroll, which would be established at a point within the prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range.
1) Payroll Cap: $40.0-$42.2 mil

2) Payroll Floor: $29.8-$32.0 mil

3) Revenue Sharing: enough to ensure all teams can spend the floor.

The current rumoured proposal has the floor at around $24 mil, and the cap around $38 mil, so, despite what Healy yells about, this is clearly worse for the players now than it was then.


Quote:
PAYROLL TAX FEATURE

-- The NHL is not in favor of a Payroll Tax, and believes it is neither an essential nor useful element of the type of system we are proposing. Nonetheless, to the extent the Union feels otherwise as they have suggested to us, we are prepared to consider the inclusion of a Payroll Tax element in the context of a Floating Team Payroll Range. Specifically, we propose that, at the option of the Union, a single-tier or dual-tier Payroll Tax structure may be incorporated within (and not exceeding) the Floating Team Payroll Range at thresholds and rates to be negotiated.
They didn't see a reason for it, but they said they'd negotiate a Tax within the framework of the cap if the NHLPA really wanted it.

So if the players "get" this in the current deal, it was already there.


Quote:
ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT OWNER-PLAYER COUNCIL

-- Establishment of a joint Owner-Player Council (with League and Union representation as well) to meet on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest relating both to business and game-related matters.
Healy tried to play this off as if it was something new that the NHLPA gained, but it was already in there in february.

healy lied.




Now, there are some areas where the NHLPA may have made small gains....but much of these gains had already been gained by the NHLPA before the season was cancelled.

Quote:
ENTRY LEVEL SYSTEM

-- 4-year mandatory two-way contracts.

-- $850,000 maximum compensation (inclusive of NHL salary, bonuses for games played and signing bonus).

-- Signing bonus maximum in each year of an Entry Level contract of $100,000 for Picks 1-5; $75,000 for Picks 6-15; $50,000 for Picks 16-30; and $40,000 for Picks 31 and up.

-- $250,000 maximum aggregate in individual "A" bonuses (as modified) for all Entry Level Players. (See Attachment A)

-- Individual incentive bonuses tied to final voting for League Awards (formerly individual "B" bonuses) will be paid by the League in accordance with the attached schedule. (See Attachment B)
It looks like the Rookie Cap number is the same now as it was then ($850k).

I wouldn't be surprised to see that they were only for 3 years instead of 4, so the players may gain a bit here. Then again, maybe they don't get it down to 3 years. I haven't heard anything about that yet.


Quote:
RESTRICTED FREE AGENCY

-- 100% Qualifying Offers for Players earning less than $800,000; 75% (or $800,000, whichever is more) Qualifying Offers for Players earning $800,000 or more.

-- Same Right to Match/Draft Choice Compensation Rules as under the expired CBA.

-- Players and Clubs obligated to reach agreement on terms of a new contract by no later than fourteen (14) days after the opening of Training Camp; failure to do so results in player ineligibility (and unavailability to Club) for balance of the season.
I believe that the current rumours indicate that all qualifying offers will be at 100%....so the NHLPA seems to have been able to "win" here by getting rid of the 75% qualifying offers. Not sure if this is actually the case. though.

Besides, if I remember correctly, the owners had already given up asking for the 75% qualifying offers before the season was cancelled.


Quote:
SALARY ARBITRATION

-- Entirely mutual (Players and Clubs have identical rights to request arbitration).

-- All Group 2 Players are eligible for Salary Arbitration. (Salary Arbitration is available with respect to all Players who have completed four (4) years in the Entry Level System and are not yet eligible for Unrestricted Free Agency.)

-- Non-requesting party has one-time "deferral right" on the following terms: (1) Player can "defer" Club's election of Salary Arbitration by accepting his Qualifying Offer; (2) Club can "defer" Player's election of Salary Arbitration by signing Player to a one-year contract at 105% of the Player's prior year's salary. This "deferral right" would not be exercisable by either a Player or Club with respect to a Player coming out of the Entry Level System.

-- Non-requesting party can elect term of 1, 2 or 3 years.

-- Both parties to Salary Arbitration proceeding have obligation to submit a list of up to five (5) Player comparables (exclusively from among the universe of contracts entered into by Group 2 Restricted Free Agents) prior to briefing, with each side having the ability to strike up to two (2) comparables from the other side's list.

-- Mutual "Walk-Away Rights" for Clubs and Players as follows: (1) Clubs can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards in return for which Players attain immediate free agency subject only to a Right to Match in favor of the Player's Old Club for contracts entered into for 90% or less than the value of the Award; (2) Players can walk-away from Salary Arbitration Awards and elect instead to accept a contract for 90% of their Qualifying Offer. "Walk-Away Rights" exercisable only by non-requesting party.

-- League has option to eliminate Salary Arbitration mechanism in its entirety at any time during the term of the Agreement by converting age of eligibility for Group 3 Free Agency to 28.
I haven't heard anything about salary arbitration in the new proposed agreement.

Does this mean that they've already done the tradeoff indicated there, whereby UFA age gets reduced to age 28, with no salary abitration at all?

Not sure.


Quote:
UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENCY

-- Age for Group 3 Free Agency reduced to age 30 for the 2006-07 season (with corresponding reduction in years of service requirement).

-- Groups 5 and 6 Free Agency eliminated.
It seems as if the Free Agency age will be reduced not only to 30, but also by another year each of the two years after that, down to age 28.

This could be a gain for the NHLPA....unless they sacrificed salary arbitration to get it, which is what the NHL offered in february.


Quote:
PLAYER CONTRACTS

-- NHL Minimum Salary increased to $300,000 per year.

-- We believe that in order to ensure that Players are compensated in the fairest possible manner, the parties may have a mutual interest in negotiating over the establishment of an NHL Maximum Salary for individual players. No specific amount is being proposed in this regard.

-- Guarantee terms (1/3 or 2/3 for skill; 100% for injury) remain unchanged.

-- Maximum term of 3 years (with term of all existing contracts "grandfathered").
It seems as if the NHLPA has gained 100k in the minimum contracts, from $300k to $400 k.

I have heard nothing about the 3-year max, although I may have heard something about a 5-year max.

This could be a gain for the NHLPA here.





There were also, however, two key parts of the deal which were of great benefit to the players, which I haven't heard of in the new deal, which they may have lost:

Quote:
UNION REOPENER

-- Unilateral Union right to reopen Agreement after Year 4 (after the 2008-09 season).
They offered the union the right to open up the deal in 4 years.

Not sure if this is still on the table.


Quote:
PROFIT SHARING

-- The parties agree that the objective of the new CBA is to make the National Hockey League, as a whole, healthy and profitable through the establishment of an economic partnership with its Players.

-- Profit Sharing with the Players on a 50 (Players)/50 (Clubs) basis over and above a League-wide profit threshold to be negotiated.
This was a key offer on the part of the NHL - they offered to split all their profits over a nominal amount 50/50 with the players.

I do not know if this is still on the table.





In short, Healy is lying.

Every single concrete rumour we have heard about the current deal is the same or worse than it was in the Feb.2 offer.

zeke is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 12:55 AM
  #19
coppernblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 384
vCash: 500
wow u just ripped apart all of healys arguement with cold hard facts
gotta say thats impressive

coppernblue is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 01:39 AM
  #20
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,758
vCash: 500
zeke:

No no no no no. When people refer to the deal in February, they're referring to the final deal that was on the table in February before the season was cancelled. That's February 16th, not February 2nd. The deal did not include linkage and had a $42.5m hard cap.

And besides, I'm going to pick your argument apart here anyway

1) The floating range you see listed there was based on 04/05 payrolls, which are bound to go drastically down with 04/05 contracts expiring and/or the rumored buyout period. Since the floor was calculated by averaging the 10 lowest payrolls right underneath the mean of the league, that number is no longer applicable and in addition, the floor would have done straight through the floor in the first off-season. The mean goes down, the averages go down and the payrolls goes down. Having a fixed floor % eliminates those kinds of discrepancies and ensures that the payrolls don't fall through the floor.

2) Your interperetation of the NHL's stance on luxury tax completely buys the spin. This was no different than "oh, the rollback doesn't fix anything, but we'll take it anyway." If there truly is no luxury tax, it's better for the Union. Period.

3) Rumors are that the ELS system is going to have up to $3m in bonuses. While they aren't practically automatic like the bonuses in the last CBA ended up being, that's still $2.75m more than the league was offering on February 2nd. And all the rumors I've seen have that at 3 years.

4) Salary arbitration and qualifying offers are said to be based on the NHLPA's December 9th proposal. Both are heavily in favor on the PA's side if this is the case.

5) Those last two you mentioned never come out except in full-text of proposals anyway, so you're just spinning that.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 10:46 AM
  #21
zeke
#freewilly
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 29,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
No no no no no. When people refer to the deal in February, they're referring to the final deal that was on the table in February before the season was cancelled. That's February 16th, not February 2nd. The deal did not include linkage and had a $42.5m hard cap.
Are you really trying to argue that the deal the NHL was offering got WORSE from Feb.2 to Feb.16?

The truth is that the NHL made adjustments to specific NHLPA complaints - they took away linkage only because the NHLPA WAS ADAMANT THAT IT WOULD NEVER ACCEPT LINKAGE!!

The NHL took out linkage because that's what the NHLPA said it wanted.

That last-ditch effort was the only offer the NHL ever made, from the very beginning, that didn't include linkage.

You can't possibly argue that the NHLPA has now won a victory by getting linkage back in the deal.


Quote:
And besides, I'm going to pick your argument apart here anyway

1) The floating range you see listed there was based on 04/05 payrolls, which are bound to go drastically down with 04/05 contracts expiring and/or the rumored buyout period. Since the floor was calculated by averaging the 10 lowest payrolls right underneath the mean of the league, that number is no longer applicable and in addition, the floor would have done straight through the floor in the first off-season. The mean goes down, the averages go down and the payrolls goes down. Having a fixed floor % eliminates those kinds of discrepancies and ensures that the payrolls don't fall through the floor.
This is exactly the point - both the proposal then and the proposal now are based around a 54% linkage.

The difference is that now, this means much less money for the players than it did then.

Remember, the NHL in their Dec.16th counterproposal included a fixed floor % (1/30th of 51%).

Quote:
2) Your interperetation of the NHL's stance on luxury tax completely buys the spin. This was no different than "oh, the rollback doesn't fix anything, but we'll take it anyway." If there truly is no luxury tax, it's better for the Union. Period.
What?

The NHL explicitly said it wanted no luxury tax.

The NHLPA insisted that it wanted luxury tax.

The NHL, in this offered, said that if the NHLPA wanted a luxury tax within the cap system, they would negotiate it.

Why does the NHLPA want a luxury tax? Because it gives the poorer teams more money to spend.

Quote:
3) Rumors are that the ELS system is going to have up to $3m in bonuses. While they aren't practically automatic like the bonuses in the last CBA ended up being, that's still $2.75m more than the league was offering on February 2nd. And all the rumors I've seen have that at 3 years.
Could be.

Quote:
4) Salary arbitration and qualifying offers are said to be based on the NHLPA's December 9th proposal. Both are heavily in favor on the PA's side if this is the case.
That's not what I've heard, but perhaps.

Today's LA Times report said it would be baseball-style arbitration, which is a step down from the NHLPA's Dec.9th proposal.


[quote]5) Those last two you mentioned never come out except in full-text of proposals anyway, so you're just spinning that.[/quoite]

What do you mean "except"?

What is more accurate than the full text proposals?

The partial text proposals?

what are you talking about?


Last edited by zeke: 07-07-2005 at 10:57 AM.
zeke is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 10:53 AM
  #22
zeke
#freewilly
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 29,058
vCash: 500
So the newest rumours now have these two key factors added in:


1) Individual Player Cap of 20% of the Team Payroll Cap. (approx. $7.5m)
2) Baseball Style Arbitration

zeke is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 11:15 AM
  #23
gobuds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icey
This is a better deal for the players, hands down. It's more that just dollars and cents and a cap. It's about the way the deal is structured. It's about how revenues are determined, and how teams report it. It's about arbitration, qualifying offers, minimum salaries, rookie contracts and buy outs. It's a lot more than just a cap number. Once anyone with half a brain reads beyond the cap number they will see that in the long run, this deal is better than the February deal.
you are making a huge assumption as is healey, that the players couldn't have gotten these things in February. It wasn't a take it or leave it as the moron ex-goalie suggests- it was the framework- that is why the players have lost.

gobuds is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 11:24 AM
  #24
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,229
vCash: 500
zeke...all I can say is

But be warned you'll have to repeat that another 15,000 times or so before some will take notice.

Amazing how the offer gets better with the linkage that was always offered but taken off the table ONCE to essentially call Goodenow's bluff after he fumbled and accepted a cap and then fumbled again by firing back a counter with had one-way linkage (blinked on the cap and blinked on linkage in a matter of days). IT's almost as if what the NHL was offering all along was the framework of a very good deal for both sides though only one side realized it until 6 weeks ago.

tantalum is offline  
Old
07-07-2005, 11:31 AM
  #25
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke
Are you really trying to argue that the deal the NHL was offering got WORSE from Feb.2 to Feb.16?

The truth is that the NHL made adjustments to specific NHLPA complaints - they took away linkage only because the NHLPA WAS ADAMANT THAT IT WOULD NEVER ACCEPT LINKAGE!!

The NHL took out linkage because that's what the NHLPA said it wanted.

That last-ditch effort was the only offer the NHL ever made, from the very beginning, that didn't include linkage.

You can't possibly argue that the NHLPA has now won a victory by getting linkage back in the deal.
Yes. It got worse from early February until the 16th, but because of the PA's stance it got better legally.

They didn't "win a victory" by getting linkage back in the deal because they didn't have to do anything to get it there, the NHL wanted it anyway. But if you consider how low the unlinked cap was going to be, it then makes sense to take linkage. The cap is almost the same to start and now it can increase as revenues increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke
What?

The NHL explicitly said it wanted no luxury tax.

The NHLPA insisted that it wanted luxury tax.

The NHL, in this offered, said that if the NHLPA wanted a luxury tax within the cap system, they would negotiate it.

Why does the NHLPA want a luxury tax? Because it gives the poorer teams more money to spend.
The PA insisted it wanted a luxury tax way back when, before a restrictive cap was on the table and before they accepted the NHL's demands for linkage. The NHL said it didn't want a luxury tax, because it was being proposed by the PA as an alternative to a cap.

You have to realize that as the offers change so do the stances of the 2 sides. The PA doesn't want a luxury tax if there is going to be a restrictive cap anyway. The only reason they would ever want it would be to give the poorer teams some more money, but it looks like they have taken care of that by getting the owners to agree to share more revenues.

No sane person is coming on here and saying the PA won the fight, but if you compare the $42.5M offer with the deal today, I don't see how you can say it got worse. Don't compare the stances of each side at the time because it's obvious one side was wrong, as their strategy didn't work. At the time they realized it didn't work it did make more sense to give in to the other sides demands because it would result in a better deal. NOT a win in the CBA negotiations, but a better deal.

nyr7andcounting 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 09:52 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.