Will the players accept?

[MissConduct 1]

NHL Set To Cancel Season

Also on The Score TICKER

[KnightII 0]

NHL: Must Have Cost Certainty (Salary Cap) + NHLPA: Will never accept Salary Cap = IMPASSE!

[ponty 0]

Hot Damn! I am eligible B)

[Chadd 916]

Some info I learned the other day...

If an Impasse is reached and the NHL decides to use replacement players, under law those replacements would have to be American.

that's where it gets interesting. Replacement workers can't get a visa. I'm not sure how that would work for US and Canadians playing in the other country but no European players could come over.

Keep in mind that each province and the NLRB would have to approve the impasse and permit the replacement players in the first place.

[JGraz15 53]

7PM and still talking....hopefully a good sign.

And I know you guys know this, but the lawyers are all saying the same things as you about the impasse.

There is just too much at stake.

Players giving up 100% year's salary...forget 24% rollback, not to mention the permanent harm that is being done to the game. NHL players are no longer looked to as the down to earth pro athletes

[Jim Bob 0]

Some info I learned the other day...

If an Impasse is reached and the NHL decides to use replacement players, under law those replacements would have to be American.

Since the NHL is a multi-national corporation I wouldn't assume that the same rules apply as apply to normal labor situations in the US.

[Jim Bob 0]

Some info I learned the other day...

If an Impasse is reached and the NHL decides to use replacement players, under law those replacements would have to be American.

that's where it gets interesting. Replacement workers can't get a visa. I'm not sure how that would work for US and Canadians playing in the other country but no European players could come over.

Keep in mind that each province and the NLRB would have to approve the impasse and permit the replacement players in the first place.

Not so quick.

The NHLPA is not a recognized union in at least BC, so the 'Nucks are off the hook.

Honestly, I won't believe a whole lot of anything about rules governing the NHL's use of replacement players until we get to that point because the NHL as a business and the NHLPA as a union are completely unlike most organizations that find themselves looking to places like the NLRB for a decision to break an impasse.

[MDE3 0]

What about players who already hold existing Visa's?...Could they not start to play under this scenario, and then renew?

[Bane 1]

From what I'm hearing from guys lihe Rhett Warrener, Jay McKee, and other middle of the pay scale guys, I would be shocked if an NHLPA vote on this particular offer didn't result in a vote where 90%+ of the players vote No to the offer.

Goodenow has the players drinking the Kool Aid. And the NHL's "triple cap" offer makes it even easier for Goodenow to control the players, IMO.

That would be fine, but atleast let them vote on it. The only reason I see for not allowing the vote is that the powers that be are afraid that it might pass. If the NHLPA is truly united against a cap, they should let the vote happen and prove it.

[Chadd 916]

What about players who already hold existing Visa's?...Could they not start to play under this scenario, and then renew?

The players that already hold visas aren't likely to play as they are mostly going to be NHLPA members. The players that get called up from the minors would be ok but that's about it.

[Jim Bob 0]

from what I gather- To get Canadian players, The NHL will also have to go to the courts in Canada, and have them grant them an impasse as well. The NLRB has no jusidiction in Canada. Any ruling from the NLRB, would only effect the U.S. And even if they go through Canada to try to get an impass, the NHL would still not be allowed to get replcaement players from teams in Quebec and British Columbia.

Even if you look through rose colors glasses, its easy to see how bad the game will continue to struggle if they go that route.

BC shouldn't be a problem because the NHLPA is not a registered union in BC. Therefore the normal anti-replacement workers laws won't apply in this situation in Vancouver.

This is a really complicated situation because of the fact that the NHL is a business that works in so many different places. But since that is the case, I doubt anyone really has a firm handle on what could or could not happen.

[Jim Bob 0]

From what I'm hearing from guys lihe Rhett Warrener, Jay McKee, and other middle of the pay scale guys, I would be shocked if an NHLPA vote on this particular offer didn't result in a vote where 90%+ of the players vote No to the offer.

Goodenow has the players drinking the Kool Aid. And the NHL's "triple cap" offer makes it even easier for Goodenow to control the players, IMO.

That would be fine, but atleast let them vote on it. The only reason I see for not allowing the vote is that the powers that be are afraid that it might pass. If the NHLPA is truly united against a cap, they should let the vote happen and prove it.

NHLPA leadership could view a strong NO vote as counterproductive to getting a deal done, as well.

Besides, what's the point of having them vote on a deal that is likely to get nuked by a large margin?

I don't see what good would come from that. Personally, I think it would entrench the owners and the players even more and make the odds of a deal getting done even longer than they are now.

Now if the NHL comes up with a deal that is a lot more attractive to the majority of players, then I could see it being something that they should vote on. I just don't see the NHL's lastest offer being that kind of a deal.

[Jim Bob 0]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/07/923065.html

I love Mark Cuban's take on the situation.

[Chadd 916]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/07/923065.html

I love Mark Cuban's take on the situation.

If the NHL was offering a cap similar to what the NBA offers(luxury tax), the players would jump at it. However, the NHL isn't offering a similar system.

[mack 44]

Even so, his assessment of the NHL dying out is spot-on. Even if the CBA was taken care of, it will never have something with the magnitude of the McGwire/Sosa race to bring interest back to it.

[Jim Bob 0]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/07/923065.html

I love Mark Cuban's take on the situation.

If the NHL was offering a cap similar to what the NBA offers(luxury tax), the players would jump at it. However, the NHL isn't offering a similar system.

I highly doubt that since the NBA has a cap on individual player salaries, certain players get non-guaranteed contracts, and there is a cap that is based on a percentage of league revenues.

[Chadd 916]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/07/923065.html

I love Mark Cuban's take on the situation.

If the NHL was offering a cap similar to what the NBA offers(luxury tax), the players would jump at it. However, the NHL isn't offering a similar system.

I highly doubt that since the NBA has a cap on individual player salaries, certain players get non-guaranteed contracts, and there is a cap that is based on a percentage of league revenues.

There are also a number of exceptions so it's not a hard cap. Plus, the average salary per player is significantly higher. I'm sure the NHLPA would accept the NBA per player cap, isn't it around $15m? That sounds like it would be much more acceptable than $5m. Every NBA contract I've heard is guaranteed, otherwise teams wouldn't be stuck with so many bad contracts.

[Jim Bob 0]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/02/07/923065.html

I love Mark Cuban's take on the situation.

If the NHL was offering a cap similar to what the NBA offers(luxury tax), the players would jump at it. However, the NHL isn't offering a similar system.

I highly doubt that since the NBA has a cap on individual player salaries, certain players get non-guaranteed contracts, and there is a cap that is based on a percentage of league revenues.

There are also a number of exceptions so it's not a hard cap. Plus, the average salary per player is significantly higher. I'm sure the NHLPA would accept the NBA per player cap, isn't it around $15m? That sounds like it would be much more acceptable than $5m. Every NBA contract I've heard is guaranteed, otherwise teams wouldn't be stuck with so many bad contracts.

The NBA's max player deal is based on linkage with revenues. NHL players have steadfastly refused linkage. Therefore, I doubt that they'd accept a deal similiar to the one that the NBA has.

And the NBA's per player salary is a lot higher than the NHL's because of two factors:

1) There are half as many players on an NBA team as are on an NHL roster.

2) The NBA generates more revenue and their economic system includes revenue-salary linkage. So when revenues go up, so do things like the team cap and the individual player and rookie caps. And that helps the per player average grow.

As far as guaranteed contracts go, the big money guys get guaranteed deals. 1st round draft picks gets guaranteed deals. However, 2nd round draft picks get mandated non-guaranteed deals, along with call ups to fill in for injured players. That's why prospects in the NBA many times would prefer to go undrafted than go in the 2nd round. They can get a deal that is partially guaranteed if they are undrafted and they can pick a team that needs them more as opposed to being stuck on one team that may be overloaded at their position.

[Chadd 916]

It still amounts to a luxury tax and not a hard cap. To comapre the system offered by the NHL to the one the NBA uses, you can see the differences easily.

[Jim Bob 0]

It still amounts to a luxury tax and not a hard cap. To comapre the system offered by the NHL to the one the NBA uses, you can see the differences easily.

Yes, but the NHLPA has said that they won't accept many of the concepts in the NBA's deal because they refuse to talk about linkage since they have no faith in the owner's books.

The NHLPA would likely be interested in a system that didn't have linkage, had some loopholes in a cap situation, relied on a luxury tax, and didn't have a per player maximum salary, but the owners don't appear willing to go that route.

The NHLPA wants a system like MLB has. Heck, up until this point the vast majority of the NHLPA's rhetoric has been based on "MLB's system is great", yadda, yadda, yadda.

The NHLPA hasn't mentioned the NBA once as a system that they'd be even remotely interested in.

[Chadd 916]

They have no faith because they claim to have found $50M+ in unclaimed revenue in just four teams. Even if that number is double what the real number is double the real hidden assets, it's still almost enough to cover 3/4 of the league's claimed losses from last year.

The NHLPA wil accept a cap but not one linked to books they know are cooked.

[Chadd 916]

I am a bit confused, guys. If I understand correctly, the NHL wants to install a cap that is directly related to the team or leagues revenue (Pretty much linked to how healthy the sport is)?

They want the cap directly related to the income they report. Having teams like the Rangers who are used as a tax write off or teams that route the revenue to other business ventures make it difficult to keep the figures in perspetive.

[Jim Bob 0]

I am a bit confused, guys.  If I understand correctly, the NHL wants to install a cap that is directly related to the team or leagues revenue (Pretty much linked to how healthy the sport is)?

They want the cap directly related to the income they report. Having teams like the Rangers who are used as a tax write off or teams that route the revenue to other business ventures make it difficult to keep the figures in perspetive.

If the NBA and NFL can do it, then the NHL can as well.

Some of the teams that the NHLPA is complaining about hiding revenues are owned by guys that own the NBA teams in their towns.

Some of the NHLPA's complaints are legit, IMO. Others aren't so much.

And there are ways to to get around the reporting revenue issues. They could only look at revenues that are next to impossible to cook, like merely looking at gate revenues. They'd have to give the NHLPA a much larger percentage than the 53% to 55% of course, but that should be a way to go that could work for both sides.

Plus, I think the NHLPA's fight against linkage is more about a fear that revenues will be way down due to the work stoppage and they don't want to get forced into paycuts because of that fact.

But as good politicians do, they are framing the argument in a way that makes them look a little less greedy.

[Jim Bob 0]

I don't see how it's not fair to determin income based on the revenues that a person generates. It's similiar to a salesperson being paid on commission to me.

And if you look at most industries, the companies that do well many times have their employees salaries directly tied to company performance. That creates an environment where the employees take ownership of the product that they create and that results in a better product being produced.

If there is linkage, then perhaps the players would look a lot harder at how the decisions they make affect the game as a whole.

I can only see that as a good thing.

[Sniper#39 0]

I don't see how fair it is to have a cap directly related to the income they report, when the sport is not healthy.  When there is a garbage TV deal and where the marketing of the sport is subpar.

Comparing it to the NFL and NBA is like apples and Oranges.  Those sports are much more popular, are gaurenteed to generate more money and have great TV deal.

This kind of thinking is precisely why we have a stalemate.....

And before you get all bent out of shape Theo - I'm not attacking you.

To say that it shouldn't be somehow related to the revenue coming in just doesn't make sense - I know of NO other business that doesn't do it - at least ones that are at least moderately successful anyway.

Next time you go for a job interview - tell the prospective employer that you don't believe your salary/wages should be tied to company performance in any way - see how long the interview lasts - regardless of how "good" you are.

In this day and age of salary cuts/wage freezes in nearly every industry I have a hard time getting behind the players in this dispute.

When I read about Nurses/Teachers (among many others) being asked to accept a rollback or freeze I can't bring myself to feel for the PA in any way.

And for the record - as a business owner (yes - I am) there is NO WAY I would EVER agree to 54% of company revenue going to the employee's. I'm in a completely different, non-related industry granted, but I have percentage targets corporately for every aspect of my business too - and guess what?...If salaries/wages get too high as a percentage - changes are made. It's business - plain and simple.