Rock Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 NHL PLAYERS WON'T TIP CAP http://www.nypost.com/sports/43815.htm By LARRY BROOKS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email Archives Print Reprint April 4, 2005 -- While speculation abounds that the NHLPA will respond to the league's March 17 hard-cap proposals with a formal counter of its own when the parties meet today in Toronto, sources have told The Post that the union has no intention of doing so. Moreover, NHL VP Bill Daly was told as much by PA senior director Ted Saskin when the two seconds met in New York last Thursday and Friday to complete a review and accounting of their joint-venture 2004 World Cup, The Post has learned. In addition, the union earlier in the week had conducted a conference call that included the 30 team player reps during which Bob Goodenow and the executive committee explained they'd be raising systemic issues such as arbitration, free agency, revenue-sharing, and perhaps the introduction of the franchise-player concept, for fresh, creative discussion without a committing to operating within an overall cap structure. The league has two alternate offers on the table; one that is based on a de-linked hard cap of $37.5M per team, a second based on a 54-percent-of-the-gross formula. The league not only has promised to withdraw its de-linked offer if not accepted in principle by this coming Thursday, it also is threatening to decrease the percentage of revenue allotted to the players as the lockout continues. According to the proposal, obtained by The Post, the league currently projects ["what may be an aggressive assumption..."] hockey-related revenues of $1.8B for an on-time 2005-06, down from $2.1B in 2003-04. "To the extent damage to the business continues to mount as a result of the labor dispute, the revenue percentage available for to the Players will necessarily become less because of the Clubs' continuing need to fund the non-player 'fixed costs' associated with the operation of NHL Clubs, as well as the additional funds needed to invest to 're-grow' the business," the league writes. "Accordingly, the Players' share...will have to decrease gradually from 54 percent to the extent our dispute becomes protracted into the spring. Indeed, as we approach late spring we have to reevaluate our proposal entirely." The 54 percent link would mandate all clubs to spend between 49-59 percent on player compensation, with the use of 15 percent withholding from contracts to guarantee the league-wide figure. Subtracting ancillary player costs, $1.8B in league revenue would produce a cap range of between $$27.2-33.2M per club. A drop in revenue to $1.5B would decrease the cap to a range of $22.3-27.3M. In addition, the league is proposing a three-year entry level system; 100 percent qualifiers for players earning $1M or less with 85 percent qualifiers for all players earning over $1M; entirely mutual and mirror-image salary arbitration rights and walk-away rights for clubs and players; unrestricted free agency lowered to 30 beginning July 1, 2006; a maximum three-year length to all contracts. In addition the NHL proposes to eliminate contract commitments for the cancelled 2004-05 season. But where the league would incorporate the players' previous 24 percent giveback offer into its de-linked, $37.5M proposal, the NHL writes that, "..since the rollback does not change the League's overall commitment to pay to Players 54 percent of League Revenues...we are flexible regarding the nature and extent of the Salary Rollback that will be effectuated as part of [this] new CBA." The league has scheduled a Board of Governors meeting for April 20, at which time the replacement-player route is like to be debated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 This guy doesn't know a thing about grammar at all. How can they print this stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteyvegas Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Obsessing again, are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 April 4, 2005 -- While speculation abounds that the NHLPA will respond to the league's March 17 hard-cap proposals with a formal counter of its own when the parties meet today in Toronto, sources have told The Post that the union has no intention of doing so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So basically todays meeting will be the NHLPA spitting on the NHL's 2 proposals and then everyone going home? Great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Obsessing again, are we? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me? What is this, "24 hours of pick on sheeps fest"? I read through the article start to finish (and I don't like Brooks, mind you) and actually didn't think it was bad EXCEPT that there's grammatical mistakes all over the place. I'm not even faulting Brooks entirely, I'm merely questioning why not one person in the entire New York Post has been allocated to correct Brooks' grammatical mistakes, especially when he's shown a history of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteyvegas Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Nah, sheeps. You usually get me when I screw up. So I was just noticing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Nah, sheeps. You usually get me when I screw up. So I was just noticing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I've stopped trying to correct posters' grammar, unless it's ATROCIOUS (or funny). But printed? in a newspaper? That's what strikes me about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Will this lockout end? Really disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giuseppe Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Me? What is this, "24 hours of pick on sheeps fest"?I read through the article start to finish (and I don't like Brooks, mind you) and actually didn't think it was bad EXCEPT that there's grammatical mistakes all over the place. I'm not even faulting Brooks entirely, I'm merely questioning why not one person in the entire New York Post has been allocated to correct Brooks' grammatical mistakes, especially when he's shown a history of them. You do know that you should use there are, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) You do know that you should use there are, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes - I made a mistake. And I admit the irony being that I was pointing out someone else's poor grammar. But a post on NJDevs is much different than an article published in a newspaper, so my point is still valid. Edited April 5, 2005 by sheeps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 That supposes that you believe the New York Post to be a newspaper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giuseppe Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Yes - I made a mistake. And I admit the irony being that I was pointing out someone else's poor grammar. But a post on NJDevs is much different than an article published in a newspaper, so my point is still valid. It's no big deal, trust me. I just had to do it, given the scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.