Hope for hockey yet

[The Doctor]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/12/10/776688.html


In a proposal that stunned the NHLPA's own rank and file as much as it did the owners, Goodenow and the union's executive council offered the NHL a whopping across-the-board 24% pay cut on all existing contracts and estimated it would save the league $528 million US over the next three years.

...

"If they want to come back with a linkage to a salary cap, then there will be no season," said Ottawa forward Daniel Alfredsson, who would stand to lose millions of a recently signed five-year deal.


Looks like the negotiating is going to have to happen within the luxury tax. Let's just be hopeful the negotiations continue. But even if a deal is struck within a few days (which it probably won't) arenas have been freed until mid-January. So no games until late January. Good signs, though. Missing hockey. :cry:

[dando]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/12/10/776688.html



Looks like the negotiating is going to have to happen within the luxury tax. Let's just be hopeful the negotiations continue. But even if a deal is struck within a few days (which it probably won't) arenas have been freed until mid-January. So no games until late January. Good signs, though. Missing hockey. :cry:
IMHO, no cap, no deal. This proposal is simply more lipstick on the same pig. However, we'll see what the owners counter propose next week.

McKenzie's take (http://tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=107586)

-Kevin

[dando]

FWIW, the TSN solution from back in October:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897


ThThe highlight of the plan is as follows:

(1) A hard cap of $6 million on individual player salaries with no cap on how much teams may spend on total payrolls

(2) A dollar for dollar, or 100 per cent, luxury tax on all team payrolls in excess of $40 million with the tax monies to be redistributed to those teams with payrolls of less than $40 million but more than $30 million.

(3) A revamped salary arbitration system that allows the teams, as well as the players, to file for arbitration and baseball style "final-offer" arbitration

(4) Liberalized free agency with the age for unrestricted status moving to age 30 or after 10 years service in the NHL, whichever comes first.

(5) Qualifying offers to be 75 per cent of the player's most recent salary level

(6) An entry-level salary and signing bonus cap of $850,000 per year, with no more than 25 per cent of that amount in signing bonus, plus allowable performance bonuses to another $850,000, effectively capping entry-level salaries at no more than $1.7 million a year.

-Kevin

[RacinM3]

Goodenow knows that his proposal will only result in a temporary reprieve, and that the proposed solution means the owners will have to continue to self-police salary escalations, which they obviously cannot do.

If a NO to Goodenow's offer means no season, then looks like there's going to be no season.

Not as if most of America cares. I haven't heard word one in the mainstream media about the fact that there's no NHL hockey being played.

Bummer, this was to be my first season as a Kings season seat holder, too.

[devilmaster]

Goodenow knows that his proposal will only result in a temporary reprieve, and that the proposed solution means the owners will have to continue to self-police salary escalations, which they obviously cannot do.


Bingo.

This is all about owners who can't control their own spending.

Tack on an arbitration process that was completely biased towards the player (which the owners agreed to).....

And a league who expanded too much in the short term to stave off massive money loss.....

and you don't have an NHL.

Simple as that.

Steve

[Winston Wolfe]

I am one that is truly missing hockey.

i cant stand the NBA.

I am starting to enjoy College Hoops a whole lot more.

If they dont have a season this year, the number of teams that have the potential to completely fold is quite ominous.

They had better work something out..... and soon !

[CART T. Katz]

i am surrounded by people who are clamoring for an nba team, promote the nfl like crazy and deep in the heart of true basketball country. not only is this a hotbed of college basketball, it's also a black hole of hockey. i miss watching my avs, the only chance i get to watch them is when they are on espn (or playing the ceebeejays) and even they don't care to make a big deal about it anymore.

we lost our ahl team when the idiot owner had the business model of "if you build it, they will come". the team left after 2 years, the affiliation went to san antonio ( :confused: ), the franchise just relocated to iowa.

there is a base of hockey fans in this area, the unfortunate fact is that the people who don't like/follow/understand hockey won't support any effort of getting any level of team here, they are trying to get a friken nba team here instead. :flame:

[devilmaster]

TSN in Canada has recieved a leaked document responding to the Union's offer....

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=107996


TSN has obtained a copy of a confidential eight-page memorandum sent by the NHL to all 30 member clubs, outlining the league's reaction to the NHL Players' Association proposal of last week and clearly stating the NHL's intention to reject the proposal and counter with one of its own.

"In sum, we believe the Union's December 9 CBA proposal, while offering necessary and significant short-term financial relief, falls well short of providing the fundamental systemic changes that are required to ensure that overall League economics remain in synch on a going-forward basis," NHL executive vice president Bill Daly wrote in the Dec. 12 memo which went to all governors and alternative governors, including many NHL general managers. "While the immediate 'rollback' of 24 per cent offered by the Union would materially improve League economics for the 2004-05 season, there is virtually nothing in the Union's proposal that would prevent the dollars 'saved' from being re-directed right back into the player compensation system, such that the League's overall financial losses would approach current levels in only a matter of a couple of years."

Not surprising. Its cap or die for the league. Just more proof that the owners can't count on themselves to be fiscally responsible.

Steve

[dando]

Not surprising. Its cap or die for the league. Just more proof that the owners can't count on themselves to be fiscally responsible.

Steve
Like I said...no cap, no deal. :(


Daly also pokes holes in the union's specific proposals, while alluding to the NHL's position, writing:

# The 24-percent rollback amount was adequate but should be structured among players "in a more equitable manner";

# The proposed entry-level system "can still easily be circumvented";

# The changes to the qualifying offer system "certainly would not result in the savings of the magnitude projected by the Union";

# The salary arbitration alterations "would have very limited impact [if any] on a Club's or League-wide economics ... We intend to reiterate our proposal to eliminate salary arbitration in our next offer to the Union";

# The luxury tax system demonstrates the union's "continuing objective to avoid at all costs placing meaningful restraints on a Club's ability to spend excessively on player salaries";

-Kevin

[devilmaster]

And so I offer this. Hope the hockey fans like it, cause its the only time you'll be hearing this in a while.......

http://www.mnsi.net/~smicalef/HNIC.mp3

Steve

[DaveL]

Just more proof that the owners can't count on themselves to be fiscally responsible.


When owners do try to be fiscally responsible across the league, the Player's Union hauls them to court and accusses them of collusion. Either way the owners lose. If the players in the NHL insist on putting their own personal financial interests ahead of the league (they'll still make millions cap or no, it's just a matter of how much) they will have no league to play in period. The sooner the players realize this, the quicker this will be settled.

[devilmaster]

When owners do try to be fiscally responsible across the league, the Player's Union hauls them to court and accusses them of collusion.

Which the union would still have to prove in court.


If the players in the NHL insist on putting their own personal financial interests ahead of the league (they'll still make millions cap or no, it's just a matter of how much) they will have no league to play in period.

I would submit that the owners are putting their financial interest ahead of the league. (i know what you're going to say Dave - 'well they should since they are the owners') But to that I submit that the owners are a bunch of self made millionaires who (some recently) bought into the league at the cost of millions. Did these businessmen not see the writing on the wall? I will say that any owner should, realizing that they were going to lose millions of dollars every year on a sports team, would not buy into a sports team!


The sooner the players realize this, the quicker this will be settled.

Do I think the players make too much? Absolutely. But who paid them?

In this past contract there have been 4 or 5 prime examples of how the owners have punished themselves and brought the league to this point.

First off, realize that the owners agreed to the last contract. Boy, were they dumb not to see the problems coming:

- An arbitration process and language that ensured that if I was making a hundred grand, had a stellar year and scored the same amount of points as a Brett Hull in a weak year, I would now get Hull type money.

- One team owner who, trying to add a marquee player, would overpay a player when the old team had right to match because he was a restricted free agent. The old team matches and now sets a benchmark for that players' statistics. (Fedorov and Carolina)

In the end, this is all about money. Owners were making money on expansion fees and a re-damn-diculous contract from ABC. Now that those monies are gone, the formerly freely spending owners are now asking the players and the fans to help them not spend so Damn much money!!!! I quote from that article today:
The luxury tax system demonstrates the union's "continuing objective to avoid at all costs placing meaningful restraints on a Club's ability to spend excessively on player salaries" Exchange the word club with the word owner. See the problem? We are in this spot because owners didn't put the league first.

Instead of overpaying, why didn't teams spend some more money on scouting? That isn't collusion. And the teams who made the Cup final last year, I will submit, are teams that were spend-thrift, built their teams up through the system and now are powerhouses. Can't say that bout the Rangers.

The union was losing the PR war up until this point. I suspect that will gain some ground with the offer of 24 percent cutbacks. Imagine agree to lose, immediately, a quarter of your salary. This is about union-busting. Why? Because they have to. The owners couldn't control themselves, and now are punishing everyone because they couldn't control themselves.

One last thought: Does anyone think, that when hockey someday comes back, that ticket prices will be less? Maybe for the first little bit. But don't expect it to last. The only thing that I'm expecting to last is the strike.

Steve

[devilmaster]

Breaking News:

The NHL has rejected the proposal from the union. They have given a counter-offer, which has reportedly been rejected by the union.

Steve

[JT265]

On the bright side, the Leafs are tied for 1st place overall, midway thru the season. :gomer:

[Ankf00]

On the bright side, the Leafs are tied for 1st place overall, midway thru the season. :gomer:
you know, if you guys finish the season this way, even if it is a tie, i'm going to have to take back all the mean things I've said about you guys...

[RTKar]

On the bright side, the Leafs are tied for 1st place overall, midway thru the season. :gomer:

On that note, "Dollar Bill Wirtz", the owner of the Chicago west side hockey club...and hockey's version of tg, is not making a dime...... He drove me away from a sport I truly enjoyed watching.

BTW; if you want to save hockey, first you have to get rid of fighting.

[dando]

BTW; if you want to save hockey, first you have to get rid of fighting.

Well, then ya just got rid of the east coast teams, and all the hockey fans in the south just watching to see the biggun. :(

-Kevin