Two new NHL proposals

[Chadd 916]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

The NHL made two proposals to the NHLPA today during a meeting in New York. One was a de-linked proposal with a team salary cap of $37.5 million, five million dollars less than the league's last offer in Feburary. The other was a linked proposal at 54 per cent of league revenues, whatever they may be. That represents a one per cent decline from previous linked proposals from the NHL to the NHLPA.

Wasn't $37.5M where they started this whole thing? They don't want a deal, they want to dismantle the union.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Classy It's getting to the point where I cannot ever imagine watching the NHL again, not like it was at least, with all the best players in the world.

[Chadd 916]

I find it hard to even read the hockey News these days

Did you catch the logos on the ice from that rink in Slovakia? They need a warning for epileptics, like on video games.

[roadrunner 12]

The Players had their chance near the deadline, and like all the analysts said if this goes past the deadline there's no way their gonna get more than was on the table at that time.

[Chadd 916]

The Players had their chance near the deadline, and like all the analysts said if this goes past the deadline there's no way their gonna get more than was on the table at that time.

According to a lot of reports, they never really had a chance at the deadline. In any case, according to the legue offer they haven't changed their position since last year. This non-linked cap is right around the same number as their linked offer back at the start of it all. To me, that isn't negotiation.

[biff44 0]

Too bad. These guys are young and inexperienced in Union matters. They OBVIOUSLY needed some negotiating help during the talks from professional union guys. Instead things got a little pig headed, and everyone is out of work! The way it works is that you get your contract in place, but with ingenious concessions to argue about and grieve later! You do not just walk away empty handed, unless you really know what you are doing.

[Chadd 916]

Both sides have experience and also have outside council that are experts in labor negotiations. This is about dictating terms, not a negotiation.

[biff44 0]

Well, if the players had "expert help", they should demand their money back, because they were misled!

[Eazy_b97 1]

It's a power struggle. This offer reminds me little kids arguing with their parents. "You either eat whats on the table or you eat nothing at all, there are starving kids in the world that would love to have thos beans".

[Chadd 916]

Well, if the players had "expert help", they should demand their money back, because they were misled!

Yeah, because "expert" union negotiatiors would have backed the owners offers. 24% rollback, no arbitration, essentially no change to UFA or RFA, massive cutback on rookie salary, etc...

[Chadd 916]

It's a power struggle. This offer reminds me little kids arguing with their parents. "You either eat whats on the table or you eat nothing at all, there are starving kids in the world that would love to have thos beans".

very well said.

[Jim Bob 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

The NHL made two proposals to the NHLPA today during a meeting in New York. One was a de-linked proposal with a team salary cap of $37.5 million, five million dollars less than the league's last offer in Feburary. The other was a linked proposal at 54 per cent of league revenues, whatever they may be. That represents a one per cent decline from previous linked proposals from the NHL to the NHLPA.

Wasn't $37.5M where they started this whole thing? They don't want a deal, they want to dismantle the union.

Nope, they originally started at around $30 to 32 million per team.

[Jim Bob 0]

The Players had their chance near the deadline, and like all the analysts said if this goes past the deadline there's no way their gonna get more than was on the table at that time.

According to a lot of reports, they never really had a chance at the deadline. In any case, according to the legue offer they haven't changed their position since last year. This non-linked cap is right around the same number as their linked offer back at the start of it all. To me, that isn't negotiation.

The numbers aren't going to get better after an entire season is cancelled and there is untold damage done to the business as a whole.

Quite honestly, I was surprised that the NHL didn't roll the de-linked salary cap number back even more than they did.

The business is shrinking and therefore the owners as going to shrink their offers.

[Chadd 916]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

The NHL made two proposals to the NHLPA today during a meeting in New York. One was a de-linked proposal with a team salary cap of $37.5 million, five million dollars less than the league's last offer in Feburary. The other was a linked proposal at 54 per cent of league revenues, whatever they may be. That represents a one per cent decline from previous linked proposals from the NHL to the NHLPA.

Wasn't $37.5M where they started this whole thing? They don't want a deal, they want to dismantle the union.

Nope, they originally started at around $30 to 32 million per team.

Those numbers were never part of an offer and there is no way that teams expected to reduce payrolls that much. That's less than half the salary of at least half a dozen teams.

[ktang 34]

It's a power struggle. This offer reminds me little kids arguing with their parents. "You either eat whats on the table or you eat nothing at all, there are starving kids in the world that would love to have thos beans".

This thing has always been about who is more powerful, not about who is right.

The power is not just from which side is richer or can withstand more losses, but also from which side is more unified.

The important thing is who wins at the end, not who is leading at different parts of the race.

The owners seem to have the upper hand at the moment, but if they don't get a replacement season going successfully next year (NLRB doesn't agree with impasse, or the fans don't come, and/or not enough high-calibre players break ranks to be replacements), the NHLPA will be a lot stronger going into negotiations in Jan 2006.

A lot of people are saying that Goodenow is "stupid" etc. because the owners will offer less and less as this drags on. Perhaps Goodenow's "Plan B" is still to go for the win, by ensuring the solidarity of the players and letting the replacement season not work.

[Chadd 916]

It's a power struggle. This offer reminds me little kids arguing with their parents. "You either eat whats on the table or you eat nothing at all, there are starving kids in the world that would love to have thos beans".

This thing has always been about who is more powerful, not about who is right.

The power is not just from which side is richer or can withstand more losses, but also from which side is more unified.

The important thing is who wins at the end, not who is leading at different parts of the race.

The owners seem to have the upper hand at the moment, but if they don't get a replacement season going successfully next year (NLRB doesn't agree with impasse, or the fans don't come, and/or not enough high-calibre players break ranks to be replacements), the NHLPA will be a lot stronger going into negotiations in Jan 2006.

A lot of people are saying that Goodenow is "stupid" etc. because the owners will offer less and less as this drags on. Perhaps Goodenow's "Plan B" is still to go for the win, by ensuring the solidarity of the players and letting the replacement season not work.

The NLRB will have to order an injunction or it will take forever to be resolved through the courts. The NHLPA will lose no matter what the court decides as players will not be able to afford missing up to 3 seasons.

[ktang 34]

It's a power struggle. This offer reminds me little kids arguing with their parents. "You either eat whats on the table or you eat nothing at all, there are starving kids in the world that would love to have thos beans".

This thing has always been about who is more powerful, not about who is right.

The power is not just from which side is richer or can withstand more losses, but also from which side is more unified.

The important thing is who wins at the end, not who is leading at different parts of the race.

The owners seem to have the upper hand at the moment, but if they don't get a replacement season going successfully next year (NLRB doesn't agree with impasse, or the fans don't come, and/or not enough high-calibre players break ranks to be replacements), the NHLPA will be a lot stronger going into negotiations in Jan 2006.

A lot of people are saying that Goodenow is "stupid" etc. because the owners will offer less and less as this drags on. Perhaps Goodenow's "Plan B" is still to go for the win, by ensuring the solidarity of the players and letting the replacement season not work.

The NLRB will have to order an injunction or it will take forever to be resolved through the courts. The NHLPA will lose no matter what the court decides as players will not be able to afford missing up to 3 seasons.

Interesting take on the 3 seasons. I thought that the star players could continue playing in Europe etc., but maybe one season overseas is enough for the North American star players. I don't think the bottom half of the NHLPA players, talent-wise, would be a factor in a replacement season.

I thought that MLB's impasse didn't work, and that Fehr won because of that?

[Chadd 916]

Interesting take on the 3 seasons. I thought that the star players could continue playing in Europe etc., but maybe one season overseas is enough for the North American star players. I don't think the bottom half of the NHLPA players, talent-wise, would be a factor in a replacement season.

I thought that MLB's impasse didn't work, and that Fehr won because of that?

With all of the appeal possibilities I've read about, common wisdom is that it would be 18-24 months from the date of the NHLPA appeal until the US Supreme Court would render a verdict.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I think replacement players may be the best case scenario for the leauge. NHL starts up with its 30 teams of replacement players, you know the top markets will not cut down prices and thus force season ticket holders to pay top dollar. I AM HOPING that once this is done, the players, who are of larger salaries and don't want to cross, start up a smaller league (I'd say 10 teams top) and work off of whatever system they want.

I personally want a smaller league, whether its the NHL or whatever, but 30 teams is too much and I don't see contraction as an issiue.

[Chadd 916]

I think replacement players may be the best case scenario for the leauge. NHL starts up with its 30 teams of replacement players, you know the top markets will not cut down prices and thus force season ticket holders to pay top dollar. I AM HOPING that once this is done, the players, who are of larger salaries and don't want to cross, start up a smaller league (I'd say 10 teams top) and work off of whatever system they want.

I personally want a smaller league, whether its the NHL or whatever, but 30 teams is too much and I don't see contraction as an issiue.

As a Leafs fan, you know your team will never go away. Ever notice fans in smaller markets never want contraction?

[mik3 1]

I'm a penguins fan, and I know the team either needs to go away or move somewhere that'll support them. Or, serious revenue sharing. I'm sure the first two will happen before the third.

[ktang 34]

With all of the appeal possibilities I've read about, common wisdom is that it would be 18-24 months from the date of the NHLPA appeal until the US Supreme Court would render a verdict.

I was thinking that if NLRB did not allow impasse, the owners would not be able to (i) go back on Bettman's statement that there would be NHL hockey, and (ii) stay unified for another 18-24 months of lockout. I think that's what happened in MLB: the replacement players were already in spring training when impasse was rejected, and the league caved in because the baseball owners could see all of the revenues and market share that a continued lockout would cost them while they went through appeals. That was how Fehr won out, and this scenario could also work for Goodenow.

If NLRB did allow impasse, and the star players did not become replacement players (playing overseas, or by forming their own league, as Eazy_b97 suggests), and if the fans didn't return, Goodenow might triumph. If the fans come back, then the NHL wins.

As a fan I wanted the two sides to negotiate in good faith. However, with each side being unified and wanting total victory, perhaps the success of the replacement NHL will determine which side will win.

I thought that watching hockey was a habit, instead of a passion, but this lockout has shown me how much I miss it. Even televised.

[Chadd 916]

This is one of the best step-by-step guides I've seen. Most of the other sources I've read seem to back up this info.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/cba/featu...ml#explanation1

[Jim Bob 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=118661

The NHL made two proposals to the NHLPA today during a meeting in New York. One was a de-linked proposal with a team salary cap of $37.5 million, five million dollars less than the league's last offer in Feburary. The other was a linked proposal at 54 per cent of league revenues, whatever they may be. That represents a one per cent decline from previous linked proposals from the NHL to the NHLPA.

Wasn't $37.5M where they started this whole thing? They don't want a deal, they want to dismantle the union.

Nope, they originally started at around $30 to 32 million per team.

Those numbers were never part of an offer and there is no way that teams expected to reduce payrolls that much. That's less than half the salary of at least half a dozen teams.

In August, the NHL offered up 6 systems to the NHLPA. One of them was a hard cap system linked to 53 to 55% of league revenues. Once you did the math, that put the hard cap payroll number at around $32 million based on the NHL's numbers of $2 billion in revenue and once you figure in the $2 to 3 million per team that the NHL would assign for other player benefits.

[MDE3 0]

What if they applied the 54% revenue cap to individual teams instead of NHL revenues.....with a broader definition of team revenue..acceptable to all....

No doubt this would be seen as counterproductive from the point of view of talent equalization, but.....it would also make a sink or swim mentality take over for those owners in marginal regions. If they want better teams (assuming of course that higher salaries would equal better teams) they would have to generate more earnings, to raise their individual salary cap.

Players on a winning or high placing Stanley cup team, would also have to have some protection built into the system for a couple of years, so that if a small market team managed to create a "winner" as happened during the last Stanley Cup series, they would not be immediately doomed to failure in the subsequent years, by being unable to match offers for star players who reached the Free Agency status, or whose contracts were up.

A formula might have to be used to offset some of the Canadian team earnings due simply to the exchange and tax rate differentials which exist between these clubs and US teams. Whether that became a league "stipend" as currently exists, or some more innovative system would remain to be seen. Without something like this it would be unlikely that under such a system, more than two Canadian teams could survive.

This would place the incentives for increased earnings, not only on the heads of the owners, but the players as well....if a club could grow it's earnings from say $60,000,000 anually, to $100,000,000 annually, then within the contract an escalation clause would exist, so that players could participate from this windfall gain each year..at year's end. Player salaries would be "pro-rated" to the earnings....a "bottom cap" would also have to exist to protect a minimum guaranteed salary level, under this type of arrangement.

Thus if I am a $1,000,000 a year player, and my club manages to raise it's sales and earings by 25% in a given year, I would also see a gain of 25% in my salary paid as a bonus at years end. This is an appropriate type of reward for a company to pay it's skilled employees for a "job well done". It might also draw hungrier players to the lesser teams, knowing they had growth potential versus an established market team where their earnings might have already reached a growth ceiling.

This of course might actually work in favor of the "small market" teams, or maybe better said "weak earnings" teams. It would be an inverted major incentive program for, where the gains could be greater for the lower end teams and players than the higher end teams. The psychology of this could have a very positive effect on team play and overall energy for the lower end teams.