What will the NHL's counterproposal be?
Well, using the leaked "confidential memo" to the 30 NHL owners ( http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=107996&hubName=nhl ) as a basis, you can probably count on a few things happening in the NHL's counterproposal:
1) They will tweak the salary giveback to hit the higher paid players more than the lower end guys. The NHLPA offered up a 24% across the board pay cut. I'd expect the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHL by having a graduated salary roll back where the more you make, the higher the percentage you'll be asked to give back.
2) The NHL will make the qualifying offers lower.
3) The NHL is going to take salary arbitration completely off the table in their proposal. The funny thing is that former player and now TSN analyst Glenn Healy is now saying that this is another thing that the players can't live without. It's funny how that list seems to be growing by the day by the side that says is the only one that's willing to negotiate.
4) The NHL will tweak the revenue sharing plan. The NHL hinted that rather than use regular revenues as the basis for the revenue sharing pool, that they will create the pool from playoff revenues.
Personally, I'd like that idea as it could take away some of the financial incentive to make the playoffs that has driven many teams to play boring, close to the vest hockey in an attempt to cash in on playoff games.
But the whole negotiation could blow up when they get to the main area of contention:
Cost certainty.
The owners want a system that guarantees that salary growth doesn't wildly outpace revenue growth. That was the major issue with the previous CBA. And the NHLPA's proposal didn't offer anything up that would put a serious drag on salary growth.
The NHLPA says that the owners should be more responsible.
And the NHL isn't going to accept that answer.
So we could be in this same spot 12 months from now unless Bettman, Daly, Goodenow, and Saskin can hammer out a system that Bettman can tell the owners will give them cost certainty and that Goodenow can sell to the players as not a salary cap.
I'd propose an escroll tax system similiar to what The Hockey News suggested that linked salary growth to revenue growth and would pay back either side to get things to even out.
Who knows if that's something that either side would consider. Personally, that should be preferable to entering the giant unknown of what the backlash will be if the season is cancelled because spoiled billionaires are fighting spoiled millionaires for control of a $2 billion industry.
1) They will tweak the salary giveback to hit the higher paid players more than the lower end guys. The NHLPA offered up a 24% across the board pay cut. I'd expect the NHL to try and curry favor with the rank and file of the NHL by having a graduated salary roll back where the more you make, the higher the percentage you'll be asked to give back.
2) The NHL will make the qualifying offers lower.
3) The NHL is going to take salary arbitration completely off the table in their proposal. The funny thing is that former player and now TSN analyst Glenn Healy is now saying that this is another thing that the players can't live without. It's funny how that list seems to be growing by the day by the side that says is the only one that's willing to negotiate.
4) The NHL will tweak the revenue sharing plan. The NHL hinted that rather than use regular revenues as the basis for the revenue sharing pool, that they will create the pool from playoff revenues.
Personally, I'd like that idea as it could take away some of the financial incentive to make the playoffs that has driven many teams to play boring, close to the vest hockey in an attempt to cash in on playoff games.
But the whole negotiation could blow up when they get to the main area of contention:
Cost certainty.
The owners want a system that guarantees that salary growth doesn't wildly outpace revenue growth. That was the major issue with the previous CBA. And the NHLPA's proposal didn't offer anything up that would put a serious drag on salary growth.
The NHLPA says that the owners should be more responsible.
And the NHL isn't going to accept that answer.
So we could be in this same spot 12 months from now unless Bettman, Daly, Goodenow, and Saskin can hammer out a system that Bettman can tell the owners will give them cost certainty and that Goodenow can sell to the players as not a salary cap.
I'd propose an escroll tax system similiar to what The Hockey News suggested that linked salary growth to revenue growth and would pay back either side to get things to even out.
Who knows if that's something that either side would consider. Personally, that should be preferable to entering the giant unknown of what the backlash will be if the season is cancelled because spoiled billionaires are fighting spoiled millionaires for control of a $2 billion industry.
posted by James W at 10:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home