The NHL needs to get more creative
So here is the NHL's latest proposal that took the NHLPA about 2.5 seconds to reject:
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/proposal_release020205.html
It was pretty much the offer that was rumored to be put forth.
Now I'm wondering why that is. The NHL had to know that they would have to get a lot mroe creative than they did if they were going to have any shot at settling this dispute.
Now I know that linkage is the NHL's sacred cow. Whereas the NHLPA appears to have at least 3 sacred cows (guaranteed contracts, arbitration, and no linkage). Given that linkage is the NHL's sacred cow, I wouldn't expect anything less than their offer having that as the centerpiece.
But to make that more palatable to the players, the NHL should have taken the 24% rollback off the table. And really, with the NHL's offer of an escrow system to maintain that 55% of league revenues go to players, the rollback isn't needed to maintain the NHL's cost certainty.
I also would have made a huge move in the age for UFA. The NHL offered to move the age for UFA from 31 to 30. The NHL can also opt to get rid of arbitration all together if they are willing to move the age for UFA to 28.
To make a big splash, I would have offered up UFA after 5 years of service. I know many people think that more players on the UFA will be inflationary, but I disagree. The law of supply and demand would suggest that a larger supply will work to put a drag on costs.
Besides, if you get linkage, it won't matter in the long run because players will have their total pay out capped at 55% of league revenues.
If the NHL is true to their word that if they get linkage, they'll be willing to talk about any other issue, then they should have put those words to action in their last offer. As it stands today, they didn't put forth an offer that appears to made even the player reps think twice about.
And that was a wrong move.
Unless the NHL was never interested in playing this season like the NHLPA has suggested all along................................
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/proposal_release020205.html
It was pretty much the offer that was rumored to be put forth.
Now I'm wondering why that is. The NHL had to know that they would have to get a lot mroe creative than they did if they were going to have any shot at settling this dispute.
Now I know that linkage is the NHL's sacred cow. Whereas the NHLPA appears to have at least 3 sacred cows (guaranteed contracts, arbitration, and no linkage). Given that linkage is the NHL's sacred cow, I wouldn't expect anything less than their offer having that as the centerpiece.
But to make that more palatable to the players, the NHL should have taken the 24% rollback off the table. And really, with the NHL's offer of an escrow system to maintain that 55% of league revenues go to players, the rollback isn't needed to maintain the NHL's cost certainty.
I also would have made a huge move in the age for UFA. The NHL offered to move the age for UFA from 31 to 30. The NHL can also opt to get rid of arbitration all together if they are willing to move the age for UFA to 28.
To make a big splash, I would have offered up UFA after 5 years of service. I know many people think that more players on the UFA will be inflationary, but I disagree. The law of supply and demand would suggest that a larger supply will work to put a drag on costs.
Besides, if you get linkage, it won't matter in the long run because players will have their total pay out capped at 55% of league revenues.
If the NHL is true to their word that if they get linkage, they'll be willing to talk about any other issue, then they should have put those words to action in their last offer. As it stands today, they didn't put forth an offer that appears to made even the player reps think twice about.
And that was a wrong move.
Unless the NHL was never interested in playing this season like the NHLPA has suggested all along................................
posted by James W at 6:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home