Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PeteyNice

NHL SEASON OFFICIALLY CANCELLED

294 posts in this topic

Then you're living in fantasy land Don. You think every team should be capped between $34 and 40 million because they all are in the same markets? That's ridiculous.

You and Bettman should get together for drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7, you're forgetting that the PLAYERS wouldn't neccesarily want contraction either, that means the loss of jobs. Then again the players haven't cared less about its lower-middle class from the get-go so they might rationalize the loss of one team or two as the loss of 35 dissenters and the relocation of the rest of the players :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's real easy to say $46M when your team has double that.

If the NHLPA had said $200M would you be saying $110M would be right? WTF?

This deal royally screws the small market teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you contracted say 4 teams and then added the maximum players-per-roster, it wouldn't be that bad. What is at now? 20?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate this deal. A $42M cap is meaningless when there are buckets of teams that couldn't dream of coming up with $42M/season.

The only way I would support anything over $35M is if there was a VERY strong luxery tax between $35M and $42M, with that money going to the lower revenue teams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is $42 million meaningless when the highest-spending teams spent around $80 million last year? It's a tremendous step toward leveling the field and depressing the market. If teams can't survive with a $42 million cap then they SHOULD be contracted. Or the owners should come up with more of a revenue-sharing plan than they've ever come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's real easy to say $46M when your team has double that.

If the NHLPA had said $200M would you be saying $110M would be right? WTF?

This deal royally screws the small market teams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, this is where I draw the line. What is a small market team? Is it just the eight handpicked teams' owners Bettman chose or is it others who don't have a say when Bettman asks for a minority to approve the cancelation of the season?

Because if you really want to get technical, there aren't as many small markets as you claim.

You have small markets, medium ones and big ones. They have to install a system that would not just benefit one but make it doable for all.

Esb... that letter was posted earlier in the thread by Petey.

I still don't see there being a season. They'll botch it and we'll be left with nothing.

Edited by Derek21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(A) EIGHTEEN TEAMS were under the proposed new cap. EIGHTEEN. That's a 1 and an 8. 18. EIGHTEEN. I'll write that in big letters. EIGHTEEN

(B)And most of those teams still lost money. And they will lose even more next year when revenues are lower.

But if you are happy with teams still losing big wads of cash after this lockout, that's fine. I'd expect nothing less.

A $42M cap is a white flag by the league. Those that want contraction will get it under this "cap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 million would be fine, both sides declare victory and we play on. that's the figure JD mentioned in his interview and seemed pretty optimistic it would get things done.

the rosters are 20 derek, that's just 4 lines, 6 D, 2 goalies. What would be wrong with carrying 2 extra forwards or 1 extra forward and 1 extra D?

really I don't think most of the owners would have a problem with a 50 million cap, but it was the gang of 8 who killed so much of the season insisting it would be some ludicrous figure like 32 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 8. 18. I don't know if I can make it any bigger. Maybe it needs some colour.

EIGHTEEN

Edited by Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(A) EIGHTEEN TEAMS were under the proposed new cap. EIGHTEEN. That's a 1 and an 8. 18. EIGHTEEN. I'll write that in big letters. EIGHTEEN

(B)And most of those teams still lost money. And they will lose even more next year when revenues are lower.

But if you are happy with teams still losing big wads of cash after this lockout, that's fine. I'd expect nothing less.

A $42M cap is a white flag by the league. Those that want contraction will get it under this "cap".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how many of those 18 lost alot of money, because surely they know most NHL franchises are not going to turn a profit every year, if you're not ready to lose money some years, then get out of the league!

how many could've spent more but decided to shed payroll in anticipation?

sure we'll get contraction, but not 18 teams. 6 maximum. the rest will recognize the realities of hockey, some years they'll make a little, others they'll lose a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're all deluded.

Eighteen teams were below the cap but what this does is it throws the brakes on any salary growth. I hardly think it's a white flag - you've been believing the Bettman party line far too much if you think it's a surrender. With inflation, assuming this cap does not ascend in any significant way in the next ten years, the NHL will be fine. It's not like every team is going to throw themselves up to the threshold of the cap, or has to. The point is to destroy NHL player salary growth and provide some measure of cost certainty, which this does. If teams that can afford players are up to the cap, and teams that can't aren't, where do the free agents go? Where's the market for them? There is none.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're all deluded.

Eighteen teams were below the cap but what this does is it throws the brakes on any salary growth.

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where they finished last year -

Detroit Red Wings $ 77,856,109

New York Rangers $ 76,488,716

Dallas Stars $ 68,578,885

Philadelphia Flyers $ 68,175,247

Colorado Avalanche $ 63,382,458

Toronto Maple Leafs $ 62,458,140

St. Louis Blues $ 61,675,000

Los Angeles Kings $ 53,833,800

Anaheim Mighty Ducks $ 53,296,750

Washington Capitals $ 50,895,750

New Jersey Devils $ 48,931,658

Boston Bruins $ 46,569,000

Vancouver Canucks $ 42,074,500

New York Islanders $ 40,865,500

Ottawa Senators $ 39,590,000

Phoenix Coyotes $ 39,249,750

Montreal Canadiens $ 38,857,000

Calgary Flames $ 36,402,575

Carolina Hurricanes $ 35,908,738

San Jose Sharks $ 34,455,000

Tampa Bay Lightning $ 34,065,379

Columbus Blue Jackets $ 34,000,000

Edmonton Oilers $ 33,375,000

Buffalo Sabres $ 32,954,250

Chicago Blackhawks $ 30,867,502

Atlanta Thrashers $ 28,547,500

Minnesota Wild $ 27,200,500

Florida Panthers $ 26,127,500

Pittsburgh Penguins $ 23,400,000

Nashville Predators $ 21,932,500

12 teams including the Devs would be over the "cap". I think its an offer the players need to seriously consider. They need to be realistic here. Another eight months and the fan base in many cities will be significantly impacted. It took baseball several yrs to recover(and a juiced ball not to mentioned juiced players). Can the NHL ever recover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devils would not be over the cap. The salaries you list do not include the 24% giveback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP Advisory that the NHLPA has made a counterproposal... unfortunately they have a typo, but I'm guessing they mean $49 mill.

I don't see how they think that would get it done, but then again the $42.5 mill has similar ramifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. $49M cap?!?

The NHL gave their final offer - which I think gave away the store - this afternoon and said there was no room to negotiate. That was their final offer. And they come back with a cap that is outrageously higher than the one the NHL put forth?

Good night Irene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is all just part of the negogiating...I STRONGLY believe the NHL will NOT hold on its "drop dead offer"...that was done to make the other side blink...

THis 49M cap proposal might get the owners to move up their number, it might not...

But just remember this, the closer they get (and they have), I bet someone caves...because if they get somewhat close and one side rejects it, they will look bad, and we all know how important image is to ego maniacs like Bettman, owners, and the players.

Im off to bed, I bet tomorrow morning there is almost a deal in place.

Call me nuts, Ive been called worse :D

Edited by Legend Of the Clown Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No room to negotiate" is an absurd phrase in negotiations. So is "this is our final offer", or "take it or leave it". The 42.5 number could go as high as 45, I think.

The NHL cannot afford to lose a season over what is essentially 20 million dollars. Everyone is throwing away far more money if that occurs. If the PA is seriously talking in these terms and not just posturing for the NLRB, they are forcing a final counter-offer from Bettman, which he will then grant. I don't think you understand negotiation, Don. Goodenow has to come away with SOMETHING.. if Bettman and the owners want to break him, he will end up trying to break them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/

The NHLPA rejected the NHL's offer of a $42.5-million US salary cap and tendered a counterproposal of a $49-million US maximum individual team cap.

Bye bye season. Bye bye next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=115069

Dear Gary,

Yesterday afternoon, Bill Daly presented us with an offer from the League that, for the first time, was not linked to League-wide revenues. We appreciated your willingness to adjust your position and we worked to respond in kind. By evening, we had fashioned and reached out to you with an offer from the PA that included, for the first time, a team maximum cap. This offer built upon the 24% rollback and other changes in favour of clubs, which were presented by the Players on December 9, 2004.

As you know, and as Ted told Bill, our offer of a team cap represented a radical step for the PA. We took this step because we too believe that our sport will be damaged greatly by the cancellation of this season and the continuation of the lockout through next season.

Click here to find out more!

We wish that the NHL had offered a no linkage proposal before yesterday so that negotiations in that arena could have commenced sooner. However, we recognize that they did not and we agree that time is short.

In that spirit, and in a final attempt to reach an agreement, we are adjusting our offer of yesterday in two respects. First, we are reducing the maximum individual team cap to $49 million in salary, which does not include the $2.2 million per team in benefits due.

Second, we will adjust our exception provision so that it is available to teams only twice during the six year term and for up to only 10% over the limit of $49 million (to $53.9 million), at the tax rate of 150%. The exception provision is important so that a successful team does not have to arbitrarily dismantle its roster after it has achieved particular success or is in a unique phase of its player roster cycle.

I have attached a short summary of the main deal points discussed by Bill and Ted yesterday, as modified above.

I can be reached at the usual phone numbers.

Regards,

Robert W. Goodenow

Executive Director & General Counsel

NEW CBA DEAL POINTS

1. Term - 6 full seasons (through 9-15-11).

2. CBA System Incorporation of NHLPA December 9, 2004 proposal into the recently expired CBA, with indexing of financial provisions (per diems, etc.) at 2% per year, with the following additional changes requested by the NHL yesterday:

(a) Increased salary arbitration rights for Clubs -- to be agreed upon. Salary arbitration available after Player leaves Entry Level System.

(b) Cap on Exhibit 5 Individual B Performance Bonuses -- to be agreed upon.

© Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

3. Team Payroll Limit - $49M in salary and bonuses

4. Minimum Team Payroll - $25M (each team can fall no more than 10% below only twice during term).

5. Minimum Player Salary - $300K (as per NHL Proposal)

6. Payroll Taxes - $40M - $43M (25%)

$43M - $46M (50%)

$46M - $49M (75%)

$49M - $53.9M (150%) only twice per team during 6 year term

7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums All dollar amounts would be in place for 2004-05 (pro-rated) and 2005-06. Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

8. 2005 Playoffs 55% of playoff revenues to be paid to Players for the 2005 playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the players have just confirmed what a-holes they are. I don't even get to go to bed with hope for one lousy night :argh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is finally getting to the actual heart of the issue, with the 'philosophical' divide now being viewed in purely monetary terms: the PA doesn't believe the league lost $280 million. This $49 million cap, assuming about 15 teams reach it, provides the players with an extra $105 million over the NHL's plan. If the NHL was lying, they take this offer, if they weren't, they decline it. I still think they decline it and counter-offer with 45.

However, there is a luxury tax here, so maybe we're getting somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0