TSN solved the labor dispute (NHL)

[Nickname]

Here's TSN's solution to the labor dispute, it's the bets one i've heard yet.

1. Two way arbitration:

At current if a player has an excellent year and feels he's preformed well above his contract he may take his team to arbitration where he can present his case (comparing his stats to others stats about the same in the effort to get a pay increase) Instead make it two way arbitration, so that if a player is playing well below his current contract, a team can take the player to arbitration and compare the numbers he is producing to the numbers he was expected to produce in an effort to save the team money.

2.The Cap/Luxury Tax:

The owners want a cap and although the players want nothing, they're willing to agree to a luxury tax. The NHL is the only major sports league without some type of revenue sharing in north america. SO to make both sides happy, impliment both. Firstly cap the maximum salary at 6 million U.S. AT current only 27 players will be making more than that this season (should it ever start) and most of them would only be several thousands over, rather than millions. Set a cap of 40 million U.S. but teams can exceed the cap if they wish. If they do exceed the cap they must pay a Luxury Tax of 100% (for every dollar you spend over the cap, you must spend another in tax) That way teams can still have 80 million+ payroles as long as there willing to spend 40 more million in tax. In reality this will probably bring the massive payroles down slightly (detroit was around 80, they'd probably fall to 60. the leafs were 60 would probably fall to 50)

THe taxes collected from going over the Cap will be redistributed to the low level cap teams (i.e. teams that are way under the 40 million (and there are some, several can't even break 30 million))

Now it does have it's share of problems and difficulties that may arrive, but it's the best overall plan i've heard yet.

[Cawdor]

Here's TSN's solution to the labor dispute, it's the bets one i've heard yet.

1. Two way arbitration:

At current if a player has an excellent year and feels he's preformed well above his contract he may take his team to arbitration where he can present his case (comparing his stats to others stats about the same in the effort to get a pay increase) Instead make it two way arbitration, so that if a player is playing well below his current contract, a team can take the player to arbitration and compare the numbers he is producing to the numbers he was expected to produce in an effort to save the team money.

2.The Cap/Luxury Tax:

The owners want a cap and although the players want nothing, they're willing to agree to a luxury tax. The NHL is the only major sports league without some type of revenue sharing in north america. SO to make both sides happy, impliment both. Firstly cap the maximum salary at 6 million U.S. AT current only 27 players will be making more than that this season (should it ever start) and most of them would only be several thousands over, rather than millions. Set a cap of 40 million U.S. but teams can exceed the cap if they wish. If they do exceed the cap they must pay a Luxury Tax of 100% (for every dollar you spend over the cap, you must spend another in tax) That way teams can still have 80 million+ payroles as long as there willing to spend 40 more million in tax. In reality this will probably bring the massive payroles down slightly (detroit was around 80, they'd probably fall to 60. the leafs were 60 would probably fall to 50)

THe taxes collected from going over the Cap will be redistributed to the low level cap teams (i.e. teams that are way under the 40 million (and there are some, several can't even break 30 million))

Now it does have it's share of problems and difficulties that may arrive, but it's the best overall plan i've heard yet.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable solution but the greedy players will probably never agree to the first part. Imagine the nerve of owners expecting a player to perform after the contract is signed! Still, its the best solution I've heard yet. Anyone got Bettmans email address?

[froedrick]

I say let the fuckers rot in Europe on 400k salaries until they realise they are losing the most important part of the game. The mother fucking fans.
Oh I'm sorry young nine year old that idolizes me. I can't play hockey for your team this year because I can't accept only making 1 million dollars a year (more than you'll earn in a lifetime), so I'm going to go play in Europe for a much lower salary until those dumb hippy suits pay me what I really deserve, that nice cooshy 7 million with a 500k bonus if the team makes the playoffs, oh and the 200k if I score more then 30 goals. Oh and the million dollar bonus if we win the cup. BUT I PLAY IT FOR THE PASSION OF THE GAME AND THE STANLEY CUP!

Yeah right fuckheads. Lovely how the (33 million dollar?) Flames make it to the 7th game of the stanley cup finals but the highest payed one (Rangers) can't even make the playoffs.

What a bunch of money grubbing jerks.

[Exotic]

They need more money, do you know how much insurance costs on a ferrari?

[Nickname]

Not much when you make 6 million+ per season over a career of 20 years.

[Malladrin]

Why shouldn't the players get a part of the cake when the corporations they play for earn quite alot of money on their performances and television licences?

[Troll King]

You didn't list some of the other important aspects of TSN's proposal.

1/ The "salary cap" of $6M you mentioned refers to a cap on individual contract sizes rather than a team cap. In theory, with a roster of 24, you'd have a team cap at $144 million, if each player earned the maximum. I think an individual cap like this would be the most acceptable compromise for both sides. The only issue with this is in how that $6M threshold will increase with inflation.

2/ A rookie salary cap of $850 000 with bonuses capped to, at most, double the salary. Joe Thornton's contract blew a wide open loophole in what the owners thought was a great position on the rookie contracts in the old CBA. Oddly enough, The Bruins who gave him that contract have historically been on the frugal side. That deal though opened the doors for huge opening contracts and when you have a huge starting salary range, later contracts will wind up even higher.

3/ Qualifying offers minimum lowered to 75% of his former salary. Right now, restricted free agents are qualified with a 10% raise. That meant that, even if a player had a couple of bad seasons, he still got a raise or else he becomes a free agent. That's what happened last year with Kariya when the Ducks let him go instead of having to offer him a $9.9 million deal.

4/ Lower unrestricted free agency requirements to 30 years of age. This will likely be used as an appeasement for concessions the players will have to make.

This seems to be a fairly good deal, but right now, the key is to get the two sides to start meeting again.



In the meantime, is anyone watching Making the Cut? It's the reality TV show on CBC where players try out in a pro level training camp and 6 eventual winners will earn an invite to one of the 6 Canadian teams' camp. Unlike other reality shows out there, the cuts are made by professional hockey people, and players who are cut have the chance to regain a spot. I've been watching the show and I'm impressed by the talent level of the players involved, but I'm even more impressed by the heart and determination they have to show in the process. This is what hockey should be about; it's the Canadian dream.

[Awesome]

You didn't list some of the other important aspects of TSN's proposal.

1/ The "salary cap" of $6M you mentioned refers to a cap on individual contract sizes rather than a team cap. In theory, with a roster of 24, you'd have a team cap at $144 million, if each player earned the maximum. I think an individual cap like this would be the most acceptable compromise for both sides. The only issue with this is in how that $6M threshold will increase with inflation.

actually, it wouldn't be $144, because they also mentioned a max payroll of $40 mill per team. anything over that and they pay 100% taxes to the league.

anyways, i think it's pure bullshit anyways. let the players make their money, better that then the owners keeping it all. besides, the owners brought this on themselves.

[Troll King]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's still not possible; if they don't have a problem with paying $100M tax. That's just the worst case scenario though, and it's unlikely to happen.

[froedrick]

Why shouldn't the players get a part of the cake when the corporations they play for earn quite alot of money on their performances and television licences?

Malla, right now 75% of all the money made in the NHL goes to the players. The company is just losing too much they can't sustain such a blatent overspending of money. Theyh ave to cap or teams are going to go. Actually because of this strike expect some of the expansion teams to go. They won't be able to pay for the rent on the arenas.

[Jeansi]

I didn't read anything in the thread but I do have one question:

Why the hell does there have to be a highest salary limit?

I mean if a team can't afford paying a player, why did they get him? Once the player, good or not, realizes that he doesn't get a contract with the salary he is asking for, he will agree to play at a lower cost.

Are the clubs just so dumb that they can't look at their bank account and say "No sorry. As much as I'd like to see you in our team, we can't afford you"??

[froedrick]

I didn't read anything in the thread but I do have one question:

Why the hell does there have to be a highest salary limit?

I mean if a team can't afford paying a player, why did they get him? Once the player, good or not, realizes that he doesn't get a contract with the salary he is asking for, he will agree to play at a lower cost.

Are the clubs just so dumb that they can't look at their bank account and say "No sorry. As much as I'd like to see you in our team, we can't afford you"??

No it goes more like this. say team A is the Calgary Flams And team b is oh... The new york rangers. The flames are poor, the rangers aren't. Jarome Iginla is on the flames but they cant afford to pay him the 8 million he wants they say 'No sorry. As much as I'd like to see you in our team, we can't afford you.' Iginla says cool, flies to new york gets a 10 million dollar contract. ok. This continues to happen to all the smallr market teams which the NHL has more of. It would end up being, select few teams with the ability to compete, the fan base would diminish because their team cannot compete, and the smaller market teams would lose even more money and they'd end up going bankrupt and moving or losing the team entirely.

[Jeansi]

No it goes more like this. say team A is the Calgary Flams And team b is oh... The new york rangers. The flames are poor, the rangers aren't. Jarome Iginla is on the flames but they cant afford to pay him the 8 million he wants they say 'No sorry. As much as I'd like to see you in our team, we can't afford you.' Iginla says cool, flies to new york gets a 10 million dollar contract. ok. This continues to happen to all the smallr market teams which the NHL has more of. It would end up being, select few teams with the ability to compete, the fan base would diminish because their team cannot compete, and the smaller market teams would lose even more money and they'd end up going bankrupt and moving or losing the team entirely.

So you'd rather see a place where the rich team A has tons and tons of money, but can't use it on anything?

Money makes the world spin, let the poor teams work their way up.

[froedrick]

So you'd rather see a place where the rich team A has tons and tons of money, but can't use it on anything?

Money makes the world spin, let the poor teams work their way up.

Thats why they want the cap. So the poor teams can work their way up, expecially in the US where they want a bigger fanbase (more money there).

Jeansi, without this kind of a solution it won't matter the NHL will go out of business. As I said 75% of the income goes to players.

[Troll King]

Just to add something to explain froedrick's point: the issue is not about a team not being able to afford to sign a free agent and add big name (and budget) players to their team. That's just a small part of the problem. A bigger problem is when a player that a team drafted, like Iginla, spends years developing until becoming a big name talent, the team can no longer afford to renew his contract because he's worth a lot more than he used to be. In other words, it's not that a poor team can't get better; the problem is that a poor team loses its better players and winds up getting worse.

The other side of the picture is that the teams only managed to figure out how to use the old CBA last season, after 9 years of the players walking all over them. They showed the restraint that they should have displayed and the average salary had its lowest increase in years. The players will argue that if the teams can show that same judgement every year, then the new CBA wouldn't need any drastic changes like a salary cap. They can also point at recent Stanley Cup finals and see small market teams playing like Tampa Bay and Calgary this year, or even Anaheim and Carolina the previous two years, and say that teams can still be successful with a smaller budget if it is managed well.