And the NHLPA turns down another offer - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Antikarma · 02-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Heres the goods, but I'll post the summary of the offer here:

HTML Code:

 Highlights of the NHL's latest proposal:

    * A six-year term with a union option to reopen the agreement after four seasons
    * A floating team payroll range with a base of $32 million US and a top limit of $42 million
    * A profit-sharing plan between the players on a 50/50 basis after a certain threshold was reached
    * A revised entry-level contract system for rookie players
    * A new arbitration system with expanded rights to both players and teams
    * A reduction in the age of unrestricted free agency to 30
    * Increasing the minimum NHL salary to $300,000 per year

OK, so lets see. Everyone is gauranteed 300k a year, players get revenue sharing over a certain profit margin, the salary cap goes up for EVERYONE if hockey makes money, and the players get to hit UFA earlier. I don't see the problem here?

Seriously, where else can a union demand enough money that it puts some locations into bankruptcy, and even though the organization as a whole loses money they demand more. It doesn't exist. If the players are willing to play for a FRACTION of this in Europe, why not more money, here?

This is getting sickening. I feel embarresed that my daughters want to play hockey.

Coppertop · 02-02-2005, 02:40 PM

Let them play hockey, just don't encourage them to play in the NHL.

lunchbox · 02-02-2005, 02:51 PM

they didn't officially turn it down yet...they're meeting tomorrow to discuss it, yea it looks like another turn down, but there has been no official statements about turning it down.

NCB · 02-02-2005, 02:55 PM

Another prime example of a sports union destroying a league. Whatta shame

kutulu · 02-02-2005, 03:19 PM

Everyone is so quick to call players greedy bastards well what about the owners? How broke are the owners really? Are the losses real losses of money or are they using creative accounting to turn a $50M profit into a $20M loss. Using simple depriciation you can generate large losses for a team.

munchen · 02-02-2005, 03:35 PM

Losses or not a cap is the best thing for hockey and the best thing for competitiveness. I dont know the specifics but that looks like a pretty damn good deal to me. They get a salary floor, 300k, reduction in free agency age, and 50-50 if money is made. If thats not good enough you are just greedy

NCB · 02-02-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Everyone is so quick to call players greedy bastards well what about the owners? How broke are the owners really? Are the losses real losses of money or are they using creative accounting to turn a $50M profit into a $20M loss. Using simple depriciation you can generate large losses for a team.

The min. price for a single game ticket is like $38 in Carolina. That's way too expensive for the product the NHL is producing nowadays, thus the reason for the low attendace. Low Attend.=Loss of $

lunchbox · 02-02-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

The min. price for a single game ticket is like $38 in Carolina. That's way too expensive for the product the NHL is producing nowadays, thus the reason for the low attendace. Low Attend.=Loss of $

that product is the result of owners buying into gary bettman's bullshit and saying the NHL can support, and needs, expansion. its also the product of players who don't deserve ridiculous contracts. See Martin Lapointe getting 20 million for 5 seasons...what's the most points he's ever put up in a year? 57 with Detroit, before that? 41, one time. he's been over 40 points three times in his career. rest assured he's not the only guy who's pulled off this amazing feat. none of the owners are even trying to stop salary escalation, they're all just doling out the contracts and saying 'well fix it in the CBA" if anyone is going to blame the players, they can make the same arguements to indict the owners.

blitz.fenix · 02-02-2005, 04:25 PM

I am never going to see the Leafs at 100$+ a game. Ever. Not if I have to pay for it. If a cap means lower prices hell I'd go to a few games a month! And I'm sure a lot of other would too, meaning higher attendence and higher revenues.

Antikarma · 02-02-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Everyone is so quick to call players greedy bastards well what about the owners? How broke are the owners really? Are the losses real losses of money or are they using creative accounting to turn a $50M profit into a $20M loss. Using simple depriciation you can generate large losses for a team.

Hello, does it matter? I'm sorry, but I would NEVER start or run a business where I did not expect a profit. Teams are losing money. Even if you don't want to accept the Levitt report (and it takes a pretty good fantasy world to say that the former SEC chairman is making things up), by the players OWN numbers some teams lost money (albeit less that the owners claim, but still a loss). When players debate this they are taking into assumption that tertiary revenues need to be included in the revenues, etc, etc. "Well the hockey owner owns the hotel down the street and THAT made money, so therefore we need to include that in the revenues of the hockey team...".

It doesn't fly that way. I love hockey. My kids love hockey. Hell I know people that would play hockey for 30k a year and LOVE it. But when 76% of incoming revenues are going to salaries, something is wrong. When two teams declare bankruptcy in three years, and more skirt it, something is wrong. When Quebec, Hartford, Winnipeg, and Minnesota all move in a period in which salaries grow 240%, something is wrong. When players bitch and moan that they can't take less money and yet they play in europe for a fraction of the cash, something is wrong.

Hell, blame the owners if it helps you sleep at night. Consider this restructing the business model to ensure that the business does not destroy itself. But if I ran a business losing money, I'd sure as hell restructure. Personally, I blame commission based agents for the downfall of the NHL to where it is now. Look at the Thornton rookie contract. We all know an 18 year old kid coming outta the juniors never researched those loopholes himself, and the agent was getting his cut of every penny thornton made.

Sorry, greedy players make me cranky. I think, from now on, I'm going to skip Hockey Night in Canada and take my kids to watch the Penticton Panthers. Hockey players that play for love of the game and give it their all.

I love this link
Levitt Report

Stan Fields · 02-02-2005, 04:42 PM

Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, but with Bettman and Goodenow involved it could be just to discuss officially cancelling the season. Or maybe the players will come up with an acceptable proposal

Serpent · 02-03-2005, 07:12 PM

sounds like the season is done with and next season will start with replacement players and a CBA in place for all the teams in the league... They will probably let nhlers back in (sure) but they will have to have their salaries conform with the new rules... I think the NHLPA screwed the pooch on this one.. They did a good job at getting them lower, but i don't see how you can have a good league without a salary cap... works great in football, and baseball has a luxurary tax which really hurts the smaller teams and the big teams don't really care about it.. So yeah i am siding with the owners now.. i think they gave the players a good offer and they just don't know when to quit..

02-02-2005, 02:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
Antikarma Psycho Location: Yellowknife, NWT	And the NHLPA turns down another offer Heres the goods, but I'll post the summary of the offer here: HTML Code: Highlights of the NHL's latest proposal: * A six-year term with a union option to reopen the agreement after four seasons * A floating team payroll range with a base of $32 million US and a top limit of $42 million * A profit-sharing plan between the players on a 50/50 basis after a certain threshold was reached * A revised entry-level contract system for rookie players * A new arbitration system with expanded rights to both players and teams * A reduction in the age of unrestricted free agency to 30 * Increasing the minimum NHL salary to $300,000 per year OK, so lets see. Everyone is gauranteed 300k a year, players get revenue sharing over a certain profit margin, the salary cap goes up for EVERYONE if hockey makes money, and the players get to hit UFA earlier. I don't see the problem here? Seriously, where else can a union demand enough money that it puts some locations into bankruptcy, and even though the organization as a whole loses money they demand more. It doesn't exist. If the players are willing to play for a FRACTION of this in Europe, why not more money, here? This is getting sickening. I feel embarresed that my daughters want to play hockey. __________________ "Whoever you are, go out into the evening, leaving your room, of which you know each bit; your house is the last before the infinite, whoever you are."

02-02-2005, 02:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
lunchbox Thank God hockey is back Location: Deeeeeetroit	they didn't officially turn it down yet...they're meeting tomorrow to discuss it, yea it looks like another turn down, but there has been no official statements about turning it down. __________________ A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

02-02-2005, 03:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
munchen Crazy Location: Sudbury, Ontario	Losses or not a cap is the best thing for hockey and the best thing for competitiveness. I dont know the specifics but that looks like a pretty damn good deal to me. They get a salary floor, 300k, reduction in free agency age, and 50-50 if money is made. If thats not good enough you are just greedy __________________ "Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

02-02-2005, 02:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Let them play hockey, just don't encourage them to play in the NHL.

02-02-2005, 02:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
NCB Junkie Location: Tobacco Road	Another prime example of a sports union destroying a league. Whatta shame

02-02-2005, 03:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Everyone is so quick to call players greedy bastards well what about the owners? How broke are the owners really? Are the losses real losses of money or are they using creative accounting to turn a $50M profit into a $20M loss. Using simple depriciation you can generate large losses for a team.

02-02-2005, 04:25 PM	#9 (permalink)
blitz.fenix Insane Location: Toronto	I am never going to see the Leafs at 100$+ a game. Ever. Not if I have to pay for it. If a cap means lower prices hell I'd go to a few games a month! And I'm sure a lot of other would too, meaning higher attendence and higher revenues.

02-02-2005, 04:42 PM	#11 (permalink)
Stan Fields Upright Location: Ontario	Another meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, but with Bettman and Goodenow involved it could be just to discuss officially cancelling the season. Or maybe the players will come up with an acceptable proposal

02-03-2005, 07:12 PM	#12 (permalink)
Serpent Insane Location: florida	sounds like the season is done with and next season will start with replacement players and a CBA in place for all the teams in the league... They will probably let nhlers back in (sure) but they will have to have their salaries conform with the new rules... I think the NHLPA screwed the pooch on this one.. They did a good job at getting them lower, but i don't see how you can have a good league without a salary cap... works great in football, and baseball has a luxurary tax which really hurts the smaller teams and the big teams don't really care about it.. So yeah i am siding with the owners now.. i think they gave the players a good offer and they just don't know when to quit..