|
Post by 3lackThorne on Dec 4, 2004 23:07:14 GMT -5
www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=107003It actual sounds like they could reach a deal next week... It also sounds like this is the " THIS IS IT" deal... if the NHL doesn't accept this, they probably won't negotiate again until the summer.
|
|
|
Post by jets4ever on Dec 4, 2004 23:44:13 GMT -5
... if the NHL doesn't accept this, they probably won't negotiate again until the summer. Good!!
|
|
|
Post by jets4life on Dec 5, 2004 14:20:19 GMT -5
I think the NHL will have a counter-proposal. If they are smart, they will settle on middle ground. If not, looks like no major league hockey this season. My guess would be the owners might drop their salary cap-only stance, and make an offer of a $35 million "soft"cap, with every team that spends over the amount will pay dollar-to-dollar tax, that would be distributed to the other teams Example: Detroit payroll: 67 million over the cap: 32 million additional money detroit will be forced to pay to other teams: 32 million TOTAL DETROIT PAYROLL: 99 million
|
|
|
Post by WPGisNHL on Dec 5, 2004 15:22:32 GMT -5
My guess would be the owners might drop their salary cap-only stance, and make an offer of a $35 million hard cap, with every team that spends over the amount will pay dollar-to-dollar tax, that would be distributed to the other teams Example: Detroit payroll: 67 million over the cap: 32 million additional money detroit will be forced to pay to other teams: 32 million TOTAL DETROIT PAYROLL: 99 million The problem with this type of CBA is that if Ryan Smith of Edmonton becomes a free agent and the Detroit Red Wings decide they need him, at whatever price, they are going to get him. Then, to make things worse, two years later another player posts Ryan Smith type numbers. The team that owns him, if negotiating a new contract with him, will be forced to pay him Ryan Smith type money or let him go. The system is still a have and have not system and the smaller markets simply continue to be developing teams and feeder systems to the bigger revenue teams. Without some type of tie into the revenues (ie: players earn 55% of revenues, then simplistically speaking, you have the same problems that have occurred over the past 10 years. The luxury tax system may only work if it is somehow tied into the revenues. I don’t think you will see any deal until the salaries are tied to revenues….however that may be accomplished. It is more complicated than I will ever understand and all driven by greed from whichever side you are on. A 30 team NHL will require “cost certainty”…..a smaller NHL may work with something else. The smaller NHL will not include Winnipeg…..the bigger one will! The owners will hold out this time.
|
|
|
Post by Big Chris in Japan on Dec 6, 2004 19:00:33 GMT -5
It`s a start but I think they are still a long way off from a real deal getting closed.
I am still holding out for total free agency and an NBA style cap.
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Dec 7, 2004 10:39:06 GMT -5
Yes, it is a complicated situation, and it is difficult to decide which way will go on this. The owners counter offer, should be $1 for $1 over a 35 million dollar cap, $3 for every $1 over $60 million, and a hard cap on individual salaries, with a maximum 4 year contract.
This way, when the contract is in its final year, and the team and player go to arbitration (assuming the player doesn't accept the teams offer) the new contract will be based on all 4 years of performance. The hard cap on individual salaries, will be based on level of talent.
Example: Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux numbers (which are very rare indeed) would command an $8 million per yr contract, ONLY AFTER 4 years of proven service, at least a Stanley Cup Ring, and X number of scoring titles etc. The next level would be $4 to $6 million per yr contracts, which will be a tier below, but still bonafide, proven superstars, with all the bells and whistles etc. After this, $3 million per, $2 million per etc.
Role players should be capped at no more than $500,000 per. Now, not everyones going to agree with my proposal, but if you want to prevent the Haves and the have not situation from creeping in anyway, with teams sucvh as the Rangers, Detroit and Toronto not giving a sh*t about anything but themselves, then you tell the Union that this is indeed, a starting point, but....you throw in the player cap or it is no frickin deal boys.
This WOULD stop the escalating salaries, because every player would fit into a category of talent that commands a certain level of salary. This way, crazy spending sprees are controlled, and you are actually operating under a cap-like system, and in some cases, teams could very well be far far under a $30 million dollar payroll. This will work for the future. In the meantime, teams can negotiate to buyout contracts, or, honor existing contracts, but implement their system now, and when the other contracts run out, there will be an obvious new system in place. This player cap, would allow small market teams to compete, since a Wayne and Mario do not come along often, most high-end players would fit in the $4-$6 million range, or less.
Including standard prospect range, rookie salaries, players in the AHL, and middle of the road, and high end players, the Detroits, The New Yorks and the Winnipegs would all hover between $28 and $35 million a year.
The players, however, are going to argue that this takes away from the free market system and wont go for it. I say this lockout will likely last all year!
|
|
|
Post by WPGisNHL on Dec 7, 2004 22:40:01 GMT -5
There is an interesting comment/observation made in one of the articles that was posted in this section.
It said something to the effect of "If the NHLPA gets the CBA that they want, they will still be the loser."
I thought this was a pretty interesting statement.
The meaning....the league which now has 30 teams will be reduced to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-24. That is as many that can be viable with a non-cost-certain CBA agreement.
This CBA is the biggest concern, right now, if Winnipeg is ever going to have an opportunity to be a part of the NHL again.
The longer the lockout goes on the better it is.
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Dec 8, 2004 9:26:30 GMT -5
Yes, it is a complicated situation, and it is difficult to decide which way will go on this. The owners counter offer, should be $1 for $1 over a 35 million dollar cap, $3 for every $1 over $60 million, and a hard cap on individual salaries, with a maximum 4 year contract. <snip> This WOULD stop the escalating salaries, because every player would fit into a category of talent that commands a certain level of salary. This way, crazy spending sprees are controlled, and you are actually operating under a cap-like system, and in some cases, teams could very well be far far under a $30 million dollar payroll. This will work for the future. In the meantime, teams can negotiate to buyout contracts, or, honor existing contracts, but implement their system now, and when the other contracts run out, there will be an obvious new system in place. This player cap, would allow small market teams to compete, since a Wayne and Mario do not come along often, most high-end players would fit in the $4-$6 million range, or less. Including standard prospect range, rookie salaries, players in the AHL, and middle of the road, and high end players, the Detroits, The New Yorks and the Winnipegs would all hover between $28 and $35 million a year. I could not agree more! This would be the perfect solution. Capping the high-end will lower all salaries. This was a key part of the solution that TSN proposed. See www.andrewsstarspage.com/10-4-04cba.htm. In fact, only 27 players make more than $6 million a year right now, so they are a very small minority in the union. This is exactly what the NHL's counter offer should be: We'll take your offer of a luxury tax, but make it more punitive, and add a $6 million cap on individual salaries. In return, they can lower the unrestricted free agency age to 28 or 29. This gives the players more freedom, and helps flood the market with even more free agents. That way, if a team decides they want to break the bank and spend big money on a power forward (for example), maybe Smyth AND Iginla AND Bertuzzi will be be available. More supply = lower price. I agree with this too - they're smart enough to recognize the points we made here and will realize how much it will push salaries down. Remember, the best thing for the cause is for the season to be lost!
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Dec 8, 2004 10:04:23 GMT -5
...it's a funny thing too, simply because the players realize if the seasons lost, this could end up in an entirely new, and nastier direction.
If for example, the Owners reject the offer because they want cost certainty in player salaries by capping those salaries with a high end and a low end, and as you've mentioned, there are only 27 out of hundreds of NHL'ers that make above $6 milion per year, AND the players decide to sit the year, the remaining players may walk away from the union.
This is what I believe Bettman et al is counting on.
That, or a vote will happen on the counter offer by the NHL because the players are not just receiving pressure from the media, but also from family, friends and associates. I truly believe that if the NHL said cap or nothing, and the NHLPA were allowed to vote on it (something I believe they have NOT done recently) they'd be playing by Jan. 2005.
Either way, the real armageddon will surface if ownership doesn't get something that makes them happy. Bettman finally realizes that unless the league becomes profitable for small market teams, the majority of which are Canadian franchises, it will fall apart. In Canada and the Northern U.S Hockey is a very important sport and I am VERY sure that if he could go back in time, he would've done everything in his power to keep franchises in Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford.
Hind sight is ALWAYS 20-20.
|
|