The NHL's counterproposal
The dance went as everyone expected.
The NHL turned down the NHLPA's offer.
They then tabled a counteroffer.
And the NHLPA turned it down.
So now that that is out of the way, let's look at what the NHL offered to the NHLPA:
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html
1) The NHL revamped the NHLPA's one time salary rollback. Whereas the NHLPA asked every player under contract to accept a 24% rollback, the NHL offered up a rollback that was graduated. The 349 players under contract for less than $800,000 would not have to give up a penny. The 249 players making over $800,000 and less than $2 million would give up less than 24% (15% from $800,000 to $1.499 million and 20% from $1.5 to $1.999 million). 133 players making between $2 and $3.99 million would see the same 24% reduction. And the 65 players making $4 million and above are being asked to share a larger burden (30% for players making $4 to $4.99 million and 35% for players making $5 million and above).
This tweak to the NHLPA's offer was clearly made in an attempt to get the members of the NHLPA to fight amongst themselves and re-ignite the chatter that the NHLPA is looking out more for the 65 players that make over $4 million than they are for the 349 players that are currently making less than $800,000.
The NHLPA claims that won't happen because the NHL's motives for structuring this part of the deal the way they did was transparent. But only time will tell on that one.
2) The NHL took issue with most of the NHLPA's offers of market deflators and said that they would not put a drag on salary growth and was merely tweaking the status quo.
Overall, I would tend to agree with this assessment.
3) The NHL said that a luxury tax would not work.
While I believe that the luxury tax that the NHLPA offered up wouldn't work, I'm not willing to say that a luxury tax system that had lower trigger points and higher penalties would not work.
4) The NHL took exception to the NHLPA's changes to the qualifying offer system, but did not come back with a firm counterproposal.
5) The NHL offered to completely get rid of salary arbitration.
Personally, I think this is a bad thing for fans, but makes business sense for the owners. I like arbitration because it guarantees that a player gets a contract done prior to training camp opening.
I would have liked to have seen the NHL offer up a revamped system that was similiar to MLB's in that the arbitrator can only accept the team's offer or the player's offer and not a number in between. I also would have liked it if the teams were given the same exact rights to opt for arbitration as the players have.
6) The NHL accepted the NHLPA's modifications to the entry level system for rookies with two rather major changes. First, the league wanted standard rookie deals to be lengthened from 3 years to 4. That shouldn't be a major issue. However, the NHL also asked that all incentive bonuses be taken off the table for rookies.
I'm of the opinion that that is going too far. If a player on a rookie contract is able to lead the league in goal scoring like Rick Nash did last season, then he deserves a bonus for doing so. But, I do believe that the way the NHLPA's bonus structure was set up needed to be tweaked to both cap the "B' group bonuses and make both sets of bonuses tougher to attain.
7) The NHL offered up a payroll range system. It said that all team payrolls should fall within a range of 51% to 54% of average league revenues. It also stated that any team that had a payroll below the 51% mark would have to pay a tax up to that 51% number and that money would then be turned over to the players.
This offer is essentially a salary cap and salary floor system.
And it is this part of the deal that the NHLPA felt that they couldn't live with above all else.
8) The NHL said that they want meaningful revenue sharing. But, they did not lay out their complete plan for revenue sharing.
9) The NHL offered to reduce the age for unrestricted free agency from 31 to 30.
10) The NHL offered to move the minimum salary to $300,000. The NHLPA had offered to move it from $185,000 to $250,000.
Honestly, this is more window dressing by the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHLPA membership.
11) The NHL stated that they want to structure the system in such a way that the median salary of $800,000 doesn't decrease.
Again, the NHL is targetting the bulk of the players in the union to try and push for resolution on their terms over the main sticking point of cost certainty by giving the lower end players concessions at the cost of the top end players.
12) The NHL stated in no uncertain terms that they are not looking to get rid of guaranteed contracts, despite what NHLPA leadership would have them think.
In the end, the NHL's gameplan was similiar to that of the NHLPA's last week. The NHL was trying to put an offer out there that was capable of winning the hearts and minds of the players that currently make $800,000 and less.
It will be interesting to see if the strategy will work in getting the NHLPA to move off of the one stance that they have that is keeping talks from moving forward on the NHL's terms.
The NHL turned down the NHLPA's offer.
They then tabled a counteroffer.
And the NHLPA turned it down.
So now that that is out of the way, let's look at what the NHL offered to the NHLPA:
http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html
1) The NHL revamped the NHLPA's one time salary rollback. Whereas the NHLPA asked every player under contract to accept a 24% rollback, the NHL offered up a rollback that was graduated. The 349 players under contract for less than $800,000 would not have to give up a penny. The 249 players making over $800,000 and less than $2 million would give up less than 24% (15% from $800,000 to $1.499 million and 20% from $1.5 to $1.999 million). 133 players making between $2 and $3.99 million would see the same 24% reduction. And the 65 players making $4 million and above are being asked to share a larger burden (30% for players making $4 to $4.99 million and 35% for players making $5 million and above).
This tweak to the NHLPA's offer was clearly made in an attempt to get the members of the NHLPA to fight amongst themselves and re-ignite the chatter that the NHLPA is looking out more for the 65 players that make over $4 million than they are for the 349 players that are currently making less than $800,000.
The NHLPA claims that won't happen because the NHL's motives for structuring this part of the deal the way they did was transparent. But only time will tell on that one.
2) The NHL took issue with most of the NHLPA's offers of market deflators and said that they would not put a drag on salary growth and was merely tweaking the status quo.
Overall, I would tend to agree with this assessment.
3) The NHL said that a luxury tax would not work.
While I believe that the luxury tax that the NHLPA offered up wouldn't work, I'm not willing to say that a luxury tax system that had lower trigger points and higher penalties would not work.
4) The NHL took exception to the NHLPA's changes to the qualifying offer system, but did not come back with a firm counterproposal.
5) The NHL offered to completely get rid of salary arbitration.
Personally, I think this is a bad thing for fans, but makes business sense for the owners. I like arbitration because it guarantees that a player gets a contract done prior to training camp opening.
I would have liked to have seen the NHL offer up a revamped system that was similiar to MLB's in that the arbitrator can only accept the team's offer or the player's offer and not a number in between. I also would have liked it if the teams were given the same exact rights to opt for arbitration as the players have.
6) The NHL accepted the NHLPA's modifications to the entry level system for rookies with two rather major changes. First, the league wanted standard rookie deals to be lengthened from 3 years to 4. That shouldn't be a major issue. However, the NHL also asked that all incentive bonuses be taken off the table for rookies.
I'm of the opinion that that is going too far. If a player on a rookie contract is able to lead the league in goal scoring like Rick Nash did last season, then he deserves a bonus for doing so. But, I do believe that the way the NHLPA's bonus structure was set up needed to be tweaked to both cap the "B' group bonuses and make both sets of bonuses tougher to attain.
7) The NHL offered up a payroll range system. It said that all team payrolls should fall within a range of 51% to 54% of average league revenues. It also stated that any team that had a payroll below the 51% mark would have to pay a tax up to that 51% number and that money would then be turned over to the players.
This offer is essentially a salary cap and salary floor system.
And it is this part of the deal that the NHLPA felt that they couldn't live with above all else.
8) The NHL said that they want meaningful revenue sharing. But, they did not lay out their complete plan for revenue sharing.
9) The NHL offered to reduce the age for unrestricted free agency from 31 to 30.
10) The NHL offered to move the minimum salary to $300,000. The NHLPA had offered to move it from $185,000 to $250,000.
Honestly, this is more window dressing by the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHLPA membership.
11) The NHL stated that they want to structure the system in such a way that the median salary of $800,000 doesn't decrease.
Again, the NHL is targetting the bulk of the players in the union to try and push for resolution on their terms over the main sticking point of cost certainty by giving the lower end players concessions at the cost of the top end players.
12) The NHL stated in no uncertain terms that they are not looking to get rid of guaranteed contracts, despite what NHLPA leadership would have them think.
In the end, the NHL's gameplan was similiar to that of the NHLPA's last week. The NHL was trying to put an offer out there that was capable of winning the hearts and minds of the players that currently make $800,000 and less.
It will be interesting to see if the strategy will work in getting the NHLPA to move off of the one stance that they have that is keeping talks from moving forward on the NHL's terms.
posted by James W at 4:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home