***Official*** NHL Lockout news thread ***Confirmed***

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: rh71
(all it takes is 1 team *cough*Rangers/Wings*cough*)

Not only that but all the Canadian teams are at a huge disadvantage. They have to pay US$ to players even though their tickets are sold in Canadian$. It means they have to charge more $ for tickets or sell more tickets to compete. Adding this to the discrepancy in market strength and the ability for huge market teams to buy the best FA makes the proposed solution more a band aid than any real solution.

I hope the strike continues until the players realize it's a cap or no money.

 

[Aquaman]

Oilers' Nichols agrees with Melnyk

Canadian Press
12/13/2004

EDMONTON (CP) - The Edmonton Oilers have joined the Ottawa Senators in saying the NHL Players' Association offer won't solve the NHL's problems.

The union offer included a 24 per cent rollback on existing player contracts.

Edmonton governor Cal Nichols said Monday he didn't think the players' offer would help the Oilers be successful.

"In my opinion, and that of the Edmonton Oilers, it is an enticement to carry on doing essentially what we're doing and the Edmonton Oilers won't be here long-term if that's what we're prepared to accept," Nichols said.

On Sunday, Senators owner Eugene Melnyk called the proposed salary giveback "a one-shot deal that doesn't work."

Nichols called it "a very prudent move in a chess game."

The NHLPA insists the offer would re-set the entire market place and save owners money in other aspects such as salary arbitration.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

Melnyk says NHLPA offer not good enough

TSN.ca Staff
12/13/2004

Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk says last week's NHLPA proposal is a "one-shot deal that doesn't work".

"It's not a solution," Melnyk tells the Ottawa Sun. "Although the 24 percent rollback is something that we look at seriously, it's not a permanent solution to the problems."

Melnyk says while he's encouraged to see the players have recognized there is a problem, he's told NHL commissioner Gary Bettman the players' proposal is simply not good enough.

"The most important thing is to fix the system. What we don't want to do is end up back in the same situation three, four or five years from now.

NHL owners are expected to put forth a counter-proposal when the two sides meet again on Tuesday in Toronto.

"There is one solution and that's what is being proposed by commissioner Bettman. If we follow that track, we will have hockey that is here to stay."

The "solution" Melnyk appears to be referring to is a salary cap. The NHL has maintained all along that it needs cost certainty in any new deal.

The players association has repeatedly stated that it will not negotiate a salary cap.

Melnyk says the owners are "very united" and while he's hopeful the season can still be saved, he's willing to lose between $8-million and $10-million in order to "get the right deal".

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[murphy55d]

NHL to outright reject NHLPA offer

ESPN.com news services

The NHL intends to reject the Players' Association's latest proposal and counter with one "consistent with our mandate," NHL executive vice president Bill Daly wrote in a Dec. 12 memorandum to all 30 member clubs.

The memo was obtained by The Sports Network of Canada.

The league has been seeking a system of "cost containment" throughout talks with the union on a new collective bargaining agreement. The Players' Association regards any connection between revenues and salaries as a salary cap and a non-starter in negotiations. While the memo does not detail what the NHL's proposal will contain, Daly writes that " ... under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

The NHL will present its counter-proposal to the NHLPA at a 1 p.m. ET meeting Tuesday in Toronto.

The union proposed a 24-percent rollback in current salaries as the lynchpin of a 236-page proposal it presented to the league Thursday, the first negotiating session between the sides since Sept. 9. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman had called the offer "significant," but added that it is a "one-time element." Bettman said the league would digest the offer before formally responding to the union.

Daly's eight-page memo reiterates Bettman's initial statement and further elaborates with the league's position.

"In sum, we believe the Union's December 9 CBA proposal, while offering necessary and significant short-term financial relief, falls well short of providing the fundamental systemic changes that are required to ensure that overall League economics remain in synch on a going-forward basis," Daly writes.

"While the immediate 'rollback' of 24 percent offered by the Union would materially improve League economics for the 2004-05 season, there is virtually nothing in the Union's proposal that would prevent the dollars 'saved' from being re-directed right back into the player compensation system, such that the League's overall financial losses would approach current levels in only a matter of a couple of years."

Daly also pokes holes in the union's specific proposals, while alluding to the NHL's position, writing:

# The 24-percent rollback amount was adequate but should be structured among players "in a more equitable manner";

# The proposed entry-level system "can still easily be circumvented";

# The changes to the qualifying offer system "certainly would not result in the savings of the magnitude projected by the Union";

# The salary arbitration alterations "would have very limited impact [if any] on a Club's or League-wide economics ... We intend to reiterate our proposal to eliminate salary arbitration in our next offer to the Union";

# The luxury tax system demonstrates the union's "continuing objective to avoid at all costs placing meaningful restraints on a Club's ability to spend excessively on player salaries";

The memo also questions the motives behind the union's offer.

"We believe the Union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement with us ..." Daly writes. " ... The Union needed the 'rallying point' that it felt this offer would provide with the players to effectuate this strategy. Under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

 

[murphy55d]

I would just like to add that I am completely on the side of the owners here. I miss the NHL as much as anyone but these players are being ridiculous. I also 100% agree with Daly that this "offer" was a crap offer just designed to create an illusion that the players were making these grand concessions. It does NOTHING for economic certainty in this league. Yes, 24% rollback is a nice number, but it does jack sh!t for this league in the long-run. It's just a one time PR move by the players, because they know damn well that under this 'offer', they'd make it back up in a matter of years.

Screw you Goodenow, you're ruining this fscking sport. The fans are the ones being screwed, not your million-dollar players. :|

 

[Babylon]

Man !!! I really want to watch hockey this year, but the problem is those dumb players don't negotiate with the NHL... Damn it's really boring in Montreal without Hockey.

 

[Aquaman]

NHL to reject NHLPA proposal

TSN.ca Staff
12/13/2004

The outlook for this National Hockey League season has never been more bleak than it is today.

TSN has obtained a copy of a confidential eight-page memorandum sent by the NHL to all 30 member clubs, outlining the league's reaction to the NHL Players' Association proposal of last week and clearly stating the NHL's intention to reject the proposal and counter with one of its own.

"In sum, we believe the Union's December 9 CBA proposal, while offering necessary and significant short-term financial relief, falls well short of providing the fundamental systemic changes that are required to ensure that overall League economics remain in synch on a going-forward basis," NHL executive vice president Bill Daly wrote in the Dec. 12 memo which went to all governors and alternative governors, including many NHL general managers. "While the immediate 'rollback' of 24 per cent offered by the Union would materially improve League economics for the 2004-05 season, there is virtually nothing in the Union's proposal that would prevent the dollars 'saved' from being re-directed right back into the player compensation system, such that the League's overall financial losses would approach current levels in only a matter of a couple of years."

The memo reiterated NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's intention to provide a counter-proposal to the NHLPA at a 1 p.m. meeting on Tuesday in Toronto. The memo said the counter proposal "will be an appropriate response to the Union's offer and will ensure the League's future stability and long-term health."

In other words, the counter-proposal is likely to contain "cost certainty" or a linkage between salaries and revenues, which the NHLPA sees as a "salary cap" and a non-starter for negotiations.

"It would not assist the collective bargaining process to comment on excerpts from a leaked league document. We will comment on the NHL's response to our proposal when it is finally delivered to us on Tuesday," said NHLPA Senior Director Ted Saskin in a statement Tuesday .

Not only does this league document provide a specific reaction to every aspect of the NHLPA's Dec. 9 proposal, but also "cynically" questions the motives of the NHLPA, especially with regard to the proposed salary rollback of a whopping 24 per cent.

"We believe the Union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement us..." Daly wrote. "...The Union needed the 'rallying point' that it felt this offer would provide with the players to effectuate this strategy. Under this scenario, the Union will likely (and quickly) break off negotiations."

The league document does not specifically spell out what may be in the NHL's counter-proposal, but does touch on some of what will be part of it, including the abolition of salary arbitration in its entirety and a "restructuring" of the NHLPA's 24 per cent salary rollback.

"We plan to make a counter-offer to the Union on Tuesday in Toronto consistent with our mandate from (the governors) in that regard," the memo said.

It's not difficult to figure out what will be in the counter proposal when you look at how the league reacted to the NHLPA's specific proposals:

On the NHLPA-proposed 24 per cent rollback for all existing contracts, the NHL reaction is: "...(while) the Union's offer in this regard was significant in the same approximate range of magnitude that will be necessary, we believe the 'rollback' should be structured among the players in a more equitable manner than the Union's current proposal envisions."

On the NHLPA-proposed changes to the entry-level system, the league's reaction is: "...we do not believe the Union's proposed changes to the Entry Level System go far enough...while the Union's proposed changes to the Entry Level System are positive and, in certain cases, might lead to cost savings, history has proven that because there is no absolute limit on the amount an Entry Level Player can earn in a given year, the Entry Level Salary Cap can (and will) still easily be circumvented."

On the NHLPA-proposed changes to the qualifying offer system, the league reaction is: "We do not believe the proposed changes to the level of required Qualifying Offers are meaningful, and certainly would not result in the savings of the magnitude projected by the Union."

On the NHLPA-proposed changes to salary arbitration, the league reaction is: "We believe these changes would have very limited impact (if any) on a Club's or League-wide economics...We intend to reiterate our proposal to eliminate salary arbitration in our next offer to the Union."

On the NHLPA-proposed luxury tax system that would start with a tax of 25 per cent on payrolls over $45 million with additional tax rates at thresholds of $50 million and $60 million, the league reaction is: "...the Union's actual proposal on Thursday demonstrated its continuing objective to avoid at all costs placing meaningful restraints on a Club's ability to spend excessively on player salaries...we remain firmly opposed to any new economic system that is premused on salary restraints encouraged by a luxury tax...The League's economic problems are too significant, and the future success of this sport too important, to accept a system based on projections and guesswork, particularly when we believe that the underlying dynamics of operating af team will not have been addressed."

On the NHLPA-proposed revenue redistribution plan which would see high revenue teams provide funds for lower revenue teams, the NHL reaction is: "we envision a revenue sharing pool that will be funded primarily by a portion of revenues generated in the Stanley Cup playoffs," as opposed to revenue sharing on the basis of regular-season revenues.

Clearly, in spite of the NHLPA offer of last week, the two sides could not be further apart. With both sides so entrenched in their current positions on the issue of cost certainty or linkage or salary cap, there is no reason to believe there will be any negotiations coming out of Tuesday's session in Toronto.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would just like to add that I am completely on the side of the owners here. I miss the NHL as much as anyone but these players are being ridiculous. I also 100% agree with Daly that this "offer" was a crap offer just designed to create an illusion that the players were making these grand concessions. It does NOTHING for economic certainty in this league. Yes, 24% rollback is a nice number, but it does jack sh!t for this league in the long-run. It's just a one time PR move by the players, because they know damn well that under this 'offer', they'd make it back up in a matter of years.

Screw you Goodenow, you're ruining this fscking sport. The fans are the ones being screwed, not your million-dollar players. :|

I agree that this proposal won't "fix" the situation, but disagree somewhat on who's to blame for the situation. A big part of the Salary issue is the fault of the Owners willing to Pay these ridiculous Salaries and not the Players demanding them(though Players demand Salaries based on what Owners are willing to Pay for certain levels of Talent). If the Owners had the discipline to keep things under control there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

Where the Player's guilt lies is in not wanting to implement stricter rules that shackle certain Owners, nevertheless, the Owners(particular ones) are what caused this mess and not the Players.

That said, I agree that the Players are going to have to submit to a more rigid Salary system that involves a Cap.

 

[Aquaman]

McKenzie: Memo dims hope for resolution

TSN.ca Staff
12/13/2004

I don't think anyone was naive enough to believe last week's proposal by the NHL Players' Association was going to end the lockout, but it's official now -- the NHL has virtually no use for the players' proposal of December 9th.

We know this because TSN has obtained a copy of an eight-page confidential league memo, sent out to all 30 teams yesterday, in which executive vice president Bill Daly provides specific league response to each NHLPA proposal, including the eye-catching 24 per cent salary rollback that had everyone talking last week.

In rejecting the NHLPA proposal, Daly wrote in the memo: "We do not believe the union's proposal comes close to providing the nature and scope of systemic changes that are necessary to produce and maintain an economically healthy league."

Daly went on to say: "It should come as no surprise that we remain absolutely committed to achieving the economic 'partnership' with our players that we have discussed with you in the past, and that we believe is vital to the league's future."

That last comment can be summed up in two words -- cost certainty. The NHL wants "cost certainty" or a link between salaries and revenues. The players call that a salary cap. When the league and the NHLPA meet at 1 p.m. on Tuesday in Toronto, where the NHL will present its counter-proposal, it will no doubt include cost certainty, which at this point may be enough to blow this whole process sky high. The outlook for NHL hockey being played this season has never looked more bleak.

Not only did the league memo take issue with the NHLPA's specific proposals, it called into question the Association's motivation for making the proposal.

In what was described in the memo as a "cynical perspective," the league maintains the NHLPA offer was more about catching the attention of the media and players. The memo said: "We believe the union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement with us."

As for the specific elements of the NHLPA proposal, the league did acknowledge the 24 per cent rollback as "significant" but suggested the rollback should be structured more "equitably" for the players. The memo also said the NHLPA proposals on entry level restrictions, reduced qualifying offers, revamped salary arbitration and payroll tax do not go nearly far enough and that the league would prefer a different format for revenue redistribution.

Perhaps none of this should come as any surprise, but the memo, and no doubt the counter proposal that is coming on Tuesday, simply reinforce how diametrically opposed these two groups are and why there's not likely to be an NHL game played for a long, long time.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[rh71]

Can any union member say with a straight face how a cap system would be bad for the NHL as a competitive league ? Or is the answer simply "because we are greedy fscking a$$h0les" ? A league is structured first, then come the teams and players who follow its rules... not the other way around. If they want it another way, play elsewhere. At this point, I don't care if they stay in Europe all scattered about with nobody who recognizes them. I am so aggravated at this stupidity.

The players willing to step up to the league's decisions need to show themselves.

 

[Aquaman]

Holik: Owners 'lie all the time'

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

NEW YORK (CP) - The NHL and its owners ''lie all the time,'' according to New York Rangers forward Bobby Holik.

''Lying comes very easy to these people,'' Holik told the New York Post in a story published Tuesday. ''The owners and league lie all the time to further their agenda.

''What that is, it appears pretty obvious to me at this point, is to break the union and start all over again with entirely new players."

Holik's comments came in a weekend interview about the NHL lockout, the Post said.

The comments appeared used in a Post column on the lockout.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

Labour talks under way in Toronto

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

TORONTO (CP) - NHL labour talks are underway.

NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow arrived to meet commissioner Gary Bettman just before 1 p.m. EST at the NHL offices. He was flanked by association executive president Trevor Linden and executive members Daniel Alfredsson, Bill Guerin and Vince Damphousse.

There seemed little suspense going into the meeting after a league memo, obtained by TSN, surfaced Monday with the news that the league had rejected the union's offer.

Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer, said in the memo that the union offer fell short of providing ''the fundamental systemic changes'' required.

The NHLPA, meanwhile, reiterated that its proposal does change hockey's economic landscape.

NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said the 24 per cent rollback on existing contracts will result in savings of more than $500 million US, with another $500 million coming from other proposed changes.

Last week's talks, when the union tabled its proposal, lasted about four hours.

As of Tuesday, the lockout had wiped out 414 of 1,230 regular season games.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Modeps]

cheers nothing, I want my hockey.

 

[NakaNaka]

Today's talks went very badly. Damnit.

 

[Aquaman]

Prime Minister offers intervention

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister - and hockey fan - Paul Martin offered federal intervention in NHL labour talks Tuesday as a lockout threatened to wipe out the entire season.

The prime minister, a self-described Montreal Canadiens fan, did not specify whether he felt Ottawa could mediate the dispute or play some other role.

Martin said he told representatives of the players' and owners' sides that his government would participate if both parties agreed to it - and that they have declined the offer so far.

"There's only a role for Ottawa if the parties want it," he told CBC television in one of several year-end interviews he did Tuesday.

"There's not a role for Ottawa if Ottawa simply goes in there and says to either the players' association or the owners, `Look now, here we come.'

"But I've made it very clear if both sides thought there was a role for us to play that we would be prepared to play it."

However, one of the few things both the league and the National Hockey League Players' Association have agreed on is that they don't need an outside mediator to get involved, arguing they know their issues best.

With the NHL lockout already into its third month, hopes for a settlement appeared to dim Tuesday when players and owners rejected each other's contract offers.

No future talks are scheduled.

It's unclear just how the Canadian government could actually involve itself in the dispute: 24 of the NHL's 30 teams play in the United States.

An official in Martin's office downplayed the likelihood of the federal government being dragged into the dispute.

"In separate conversations over the past few weeks (Martin) has had occasion to speak, in passing, with acquaintances from the management and players' sides" said spokesman Scott Reid.

"As a hockey fan he naturally asked if there was anything he could do to help find a resolution to this stand-off.

"The view from both sides was that there really wasn't much that government could do to help and that ultimately it falls to the two parties to negotiate an outcome."

Martin declined to offer an opinion on the dispute, saying the federal government shouldn't display any prejudice if it wanted to get involved.

But he did say Tuesday in another interview that he wanted to see the NHL help smaller teams survive, and cited the NFL's Green Bay Packers and the CFL's Saskatchewan Roughriders as examples.

Both the CFL and NFL have salary caps but Martin did not specifically say whether he felt the NHL should have one. The salary cap issue lies at the heart of the dispute between hockey players and owners.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

Excerpts from Bettman's news conference

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

TORONTO (CP) - Excerpts from NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's news conference Tuesday:

We studied the (Players' Association) proposal extensively and we discussed it with each of our 30 clubs. The unanimous conclusion was the union's proposal does not work. It is dramatic in its immediate, short-term impact, but is fatally flawed as a system going forward...

Clearly, the 24 per cent rollback is an essential agreement in the implementation of a new system - the union has admitted as much. However, the rollback is not, in and of itself, a new system...

If you accept everything the union says will result from their proposal, the players will receive 56.6 per cent of our revenues on Day 1 of a new agreement. To repeat, the players' proposal translates to 56.6 pe cent. We countered at 54 per cent . . . So if we cannot make an agreement with such a modest gap to bridge, it must be because the union does not believe that the system will reduce costs to the 56.6 per cent level and keep them there. And the result - perhaps the union's hope - will be the resumption of the inflationary spiral...

If the union does not come forward now, it proves that the union leadership knows full well that under the union's proposal, the fundamental failures of our current system will not change and we will be right back where we were in, at best, a couple of years...

The union's offer of the rollback was a great start. Now, let's get together and fix the system the right way...

We accepted the principle of the 24 per cent rollback - however, we restructured which players would give back, and how much they would give back, by proposing a graduated rollback scale...

Under our counter-proposal, any player making less than $800,000 would not see his salary diminished at all. Under our proposal, the reduction for a player making between $800,000 and $1.49 million would be 15 per cent. The reduction for a player making $1.5 million to $1.99 million would be 20 per cent. The reduction for a player making $2 million to $3.99 million would be the 24 per cent the union leadership offered. The reduction for a player making between $4 million and $4.99 million would be 30 per cent . . . And the reduction for a player making $5 million or more would be 35 per cent. 731 of our players - 91.8 pe cent - would be at or below the union's proposed 24 per cent...

The players' proposal to reduce current contracts is a big-time, significant and meaningful move... The union has agreed to in effect `reset the dial.' And for that we are most appreciative...

By its offer, the union finally has acknowledged the magnitude of our losses. Despite all of the Union's rhetoric to the contrary, the union has confirmed the accuracy of our financial reporting. There is no other rational explanation for a $269-million reduction on contracts for this season...

I will confirm something very important that we repeated to the union: We have not sought - and are not seeking now - the elimination of guaranteed contracts. That is a bogus issue...

We proposed to the union that we would agree to a structure so that the median salary could stay where it is ($800,000 in `03-'04 for players who played in the NHL)...

We also proposed increasing the minimum annual player salary to $300,000 (a 62.2 per cent increase), when the union only proposed an increase to $250,000...

We made a detailed system proposal - a `salary range' - which, based on last year's economics, would see team player costs between $38.6 million and $34.6 million...

Much like the one earlier proposal made by the union, the rest of this proposal simply modifies the current system, which we have stated many times needs a radical restructuring. The changes to the entry level system; arbitration, qualifying offers, and the use of a payroll or luxury tx will not create a healthy and viable league...

We demonstrated in hard numbers that if we accepted the union's proposal and framework, we would be back in the same position - best case - within two to three years...

We are certain that under the union's proposal, rapid inflation will begin immediately, the losses will begin to mount quickly and nothing will have changed for the future...

We accepted the union proposal on changes to the entry level system, with the proviso that all bonuses be eliminated. The bonuses - the so-called `model' - have created a construct for the circumvention of the entry level system. It is why the system has not worked as was originally intended...

The payroll tax proposal is meaningless, even under the projections made by the union. I do not need to tell you once again why we do not think luxury or payroll taxes work. We haven't changed our minds . . .

Look at the union's proposal on its face: No tax until $45 million. If very team went to $45 million, there would be no taxes paid and our player cost would be what they are now. With a $50-million payroll, a team would pay a $1-million tax - we could pay out 80 per cent of revenues, more than the 74 per cent under old CBA - without triggering more than a $1-million tax per team. That won't do anything...

Salary Arbitration is inflationary - very inflationary. This one is easy. We said it must be eliminated...

As to qualifying offers and the other proposals - they either do not provide meaningful relief or will need further discussion when we finally have a new system in which these elements will operate. They can all be discussed at a later point...

We also proposed liberalizing the requirement for unrestricted free agency, acknowledging that the 31-year-old age limit was negotiable downward...

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

League, union reject proposals

TSN/Canadian Press
12/14/2004

TORONTO (CP) - NHL labour talks were derailed Tuesday after each side rejected the other's proposal.

The talks lasted about 3 1/2 hours. The league made a one-hour presentation on its counter-proposal, which included a salary cap. The NHL Players' Association asked for a caucus, which lasted 2 1/2 hours, before returning to end the meeting.

There are no future talks planned at this time to end the NHL lockout, which including Tuesday night has wiped out 414 games. And if anything, the gap seemed to widen after Tuesday's get-together.

A salary cap, linking cost to revenue, appears to be the main stumbling block. The league calls it a "salary range," saying it proposes to give 54 per cent of its revenues to the players.

"My hope is that the union leadership recognizes that the owners' resolve is great," commissioner Gary Bettman told a news conference. "We only know of really one approach to meaningfully address and fix our problems. And unless somebody can miraculously come up with another approach, which I am highly skeptical of but always anxious to listen, we're committed to fixing this the right way.

"And that means we need to forge an economic partnership. We need to be together - teams and players, league and union - working together to grow this game and I don't think there's any substitute for that.

"And the sooner union leadership and the players realise that, the sooner we can move forward. Because quite frankly as we stay out, the longer this work stoppage goes on, it's only going to get worse. It's not going to get easier."

The league counter-offer contained what Bettman called a "salary range, which, based on last year's economics, would see team player costs between $38.6 million and $34.6 million (US)," the commissioner added.

Asked why he thinks the NHLPA might change its position that it won't accept a salary cap or something that links costs and revenue, the commissioner said: "Well, work stoppages are historically about changing expectations.

"We've got a problem and we've got to fix it. And at some point the players and the union are going to have to decide that they're going to be part of the solution. That's what it's going to take to get us playing."

The players have offered a luxury tax as a form of salary-drag, forcing clubs who spend freely to pay a penalty. The NHL has consistently reflected that.

"We have no interest in a luxury tax at any level at any threshhold," Bettman said dismissively.

NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow scheduled a news conference for later Tuesday.

The day started, as expected, with the NHL rejecting the union's proposal, which included a one-time 24 per cent rollback on existing player contracts.

"The unanimous conclusion was the union's proposal does not work," Bettman said. "It is dramatic in its immediate, short-term impact, but is fatally flawed as a system going forward."

Instead, the league offered a revised rollback offer, proposing a graduated scale.

Players making less than $800,000 would not see their salary diminished at all. Players making more would give back graduated amounts depending on their pay, with the top-level players making $5 million or more giving 35 per cent back from their existing contract.

The league said its proposal would mean 731 players - or 91.8 per cent - would be at or below the union's proposed 24 per cent.

Despite Tuesday's rejections, Bettman insisted that the two side were not that far apart.

"The union's offer of the rollback was a great start. Now, let's get together and fix the system the right way," he said.

"If you accept everything the union says will result from their proposal, the players will receive 56.6 per cent of our revenues on Day 1 of a new agreement ... We countered at 54 per cent."

Bettman's right-hand man also looked for positives.

"We'll keep working at it," said Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer. "It's hard to draw any conclusions from this meeting other than we're still not any closer to a resolution."

Goodenow arrived to meet Bettman just before 1 p.m. at the NHL offices. He was flanked by association executive president Trevor Linden and executive members Daniel Alfredsson, Bill Guerin, Bob Boughner, Trent Klatt, Arturs Irbe and Vince Damphousse.

There seemed little suspense going into the meeting after a league memo, obtained by TSN, surfaced Monday with the news that the league had rejected the union's recent offer.

Bettman later told reporters that the league had no part in leaking the memo.

The leak also came on the heels of criticism of the union offer from the ownership of the Edmonton Oilers and Ottawa Senators.

The NHLPA, meanwhile, reiterated that its proposal does change hockey's economic landscape.

NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said the 24 per cent rollback on existing contracts will result in savings of more than $500 million, with another $500 million coming from other proposed changes.

Last week's talks, when the union tabled its proposal, lasted about four hours.


Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

Excerpts from Goodenow's speech

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

TORONTO (CP) - Excerpts from NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow's statement to the media Tuesday:

Last week the players made a major proposal to achieve a negotiated deal with the league. The proposal included an immediate 24 per cent rollback on all existing contracts as well as other significant concessions for the owners and real revenue sharing.

Our proposal was not based on a percentage of revenues, it never has been. The league presented its response today. They rejected our proposal without engaging in really in any negotiation of its terms...

Their projections, I would suggest to you, are wildly unreliable, using an assortment of mostly made-up numbers in a variety of different time periods. I can tell you that these projections are completely useless and phony.

For example, Gary insists that player compensation had gone up by 12 per cent a year and projected that unsigned players would receive increases of over 23 per cent in 2005-2006 under our proposed system.

The facts are different. Over the last five years, player compensation has actually gone up around seven per cent a year. And the real numbers over the last five years of this agreement have been 5.2 per cent, 5.8 per cent, 14.4, 9.0 and 2.2. As for revenues, the league's revenues have gone up almost nine per cent a year for the last five years on their own numbers, which understate their revenues. But the league used a plug number to assume they would only go up by three per cent a year in their made-up projections.

The NHL spent very little time in their proposal. They offered a club-by-club cap, just like the one they described to us back in July. Then the league proposed to eliminate salary arbitration, hammer ELS (entry level system) players harder and were kind enough to tell us how to restructure the rollback. Furthermore and importantly, they offered no real revenue sharing among the clubs.

In short, the league took what they liked from our proposal, made major changes and slapped a salary cap on top of it. Put simply, our proposal provides the basis for a negotiated agreement but the NHL's does not.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

The philosophical gap widens

Canadian Press
12/14/2004

TORONTO (CP) - The difference in their numbers looks marginal, but the philosophical gap between league and union proposals to get the NHL back on ice is as wide as ever.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said Tuesday that under the league's counter-proposal to the NHL Players' Association, players would receive a projected 54 per cent share of league revenues for the 2004-05 season.

That's up one per cent from the 53 per cent offered last summer, and it's just 2.6 per cent below what the league says players would get under the NHLPA's proposal presented last Thursday, based on the union's luxury tax proposal of 20 cents on the dollar for payrolls over $45 million US, 50 cents over $50 million and 60 cents over $60 million.

The NHLPA doesn't dispute the 56.6 per cent figure, but says it's irrelevant. It won't accept a salary cap.

The league, meanwhile, rejects the union's luxury tax proposal, calling it too inflationary. Instead, it suggested a "salary range" whereby clubs would spend no less than 51 per cent and no more than 57 per cent of their share of hockey-related revenues. The league says such a proposal - which links spending to revenues - would see teams spend between $34.6 million and $38.6 million. The average team payroll in the league last season was $44.4 million.

Even under the league's analysis, both proposals are well below the 75 per cent share of revenues that Arthur Levitt claimed players received in the 2002-03 season in his controversial review of NHL finances. That's still not enough for the "cost certainty" the league maintains that it needs.

"On its face, this narrow differential would suggest that there should be a basis for agreement," the NHL wrote in its counter-proposal, adding that its own analysis "makes it clear that the NHLPA has apparently offered the NHL a system that will continue the tremendous inflation and enormous league-wide losses we have experienced" under the expired collective bargaining agreement.

Here's a look at some of the other key differences between each side's proposals:

Salary rollbacks: The union offered a 24 per cent pay cut on all existing player contracts - an eye-opener for fans and even some players.

The NHL's proposal would scale back salaries of the highest-paid players by as much as 35 per cent, while players earning less than $800,000 would see no cut in their pay.

That's an attempt by the league to appeal to the 43.8 per cent of players - 349 of them - it says are paid below $800,000 annually. That includes those who spent just one day on an NHL roster last season.

The league says 41 players making more than $5 million - like Toronto's Mats Sundin and Ed Belfour, Ottawa's Daniel Alfredsson, the Rangers' Jaromir Jagr and New Jersey's Martin Brodeur - would see a 35 per cent salary rollback. Twenty-four players making between $4 million and $5 million would lose 30 per cent.

Revenue sharing: The union proposed $65 million be shared among clubs, which would see the top 10 higher-revenue clubs dish out cash to the bottom 10 or 12 lower-revenue clubs. The league said it intends to implement "meaningful" revenue-sharing but did not elaborate.

Entry-level system: The union proposed an $850,000 maximum salary for rookies, down from $1.295 million, for three years, as well as a maximum $850,000 in total bonuses, which in the old CBA are unlimited.

The league accepted the union's proposed maximum base salary but wants signing and performance bonuses completely eliminated.

Qualifying offers: In the expired agreement, qualifying offers - the offers teams make to retain the rights to their own restricted free agents - had to be at least 110 per cent of last year's salary for any player who earned less than the league's average salary, regardless of his performance, or 100 per cent of a player's salary from last season for anyone making over the league average of about $1 million.

The union proposed qualifying offers of 110 per cent for players earning $660,000 or less, 105 per cent for salaries between $660,000 and $1 million, and 100 per cent for more than $1 million.

Calling the union's proposal "inflationary," the league said qualifying offers don't even need to match 100 per cent of the player's salary in the previous season. The NHL didn't establish a rate but theoretically, a player making $2 million a season could be offered, say, $1.8 million to guarantee its right to negotiate with the player.

Salary arbitration: If the NHL has its way, there won't be any more salary arbitration offered at all.

The union's proposal would give clubs an opportunity, once in a player's career, to take him to arbitration if he's overpaid.

The league countered by saying the NHLPA's proposal still limits a club's ability to take a Group 2 restricted free agent to arbitration. The NHL argues salary arbitration produces salary increases by between 46 per cent and 85 per cent and is thus too inflationary.

Group 3 unrestricted free agency: The union did not recommend any changes to this process, which allows players over age 31 to declare unrestricted free agency once their contracts expire.

The league countered by offering to lower that age of eligibility to 30, in what appears to be an effort by Bettman to reduce the sting of its other proposals.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

McKenzie: I've got a news flash for both sides

TSN.ca Staff
12/14/2004

We've heard from the NHL and the NHLPA, so now let's get a broader perspective.

What we are going to see in the next little while is an increase in the rhetoric, which will get cranked up to an unbelieveable level. The people who believe in the Players' Association will be shaking their fists and saying, "No Cap!" And the people who believe in the National Hockey League will be saying, "Cost Certainty!"

All I know is this - you can make a case for both sides being entirely reasonable.

The National Basketball Association and the National Football League have cost certainty. So it is not unreasonable for the National Hockey League to insist on a system with cost certainty. You can wonder if it's reasonable to do that in the face of losing an entire season, but that's a whole other question.

You can also turn around and say that much of what the players offered provided the league with an opportunity to negotiate a system that doesn't neccesarily have cost certainty, but has enough systemic pressure within it - along with the 24 percent rollback - to allow the general managers to do their job in a sensible fashion while still allowing some teams to make some money.

Well, I've got a news flash for both sides.

You've got a 2.1 billion dollar pie right now. As long as these two sides continue on their current course, that pie is going to shrink. A year from now, that pie that started out looking like a nice big pot pie is going to turn into a little mince meat tart.

At the end of the day there is going to be cost certainty in this game because the $2.1 billion pie might be cut in half within a year. And that means everybody gets paid less.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[rh71]

I'd like to chuck a fvcking pie at someone...

 

[alphatarget1]

Gary Bettman needs to go.

Jacka$$.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: rh71
I'd like to chuck a fvcking pie at someone...

Agreed. These players can go freakin move to Europe and play there for the rest of their career. It's not like there will never be any new talent over what we have now. I swear these players are not living in reality. The NHL doesn't have anywhere near the viewership or revenue of the NFL or NBA, but those leagues do fine with a cap...why can't the NHL?

Screw 'em. I keep watching the AHL...better hockey anyhow.

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Gary Bettman needs to go.

Jacka$$.

Nah, I think the player's union needs to get a dose of reality. Bettman is not going anywhere...he has the owners behind him, Unless that changes, he won't be going anywhere.

Another thing, the players made out like gangbusters during the last lockout, which led to the situation we are in now, but now they are upset that the NHL isn't bowing in to them this time. They should have expected this. They abused the CBA since the last lockout..now they can pay for it.

:|

 

[Aquaman]

Domi calls NHL offer 'slap in the face'

Canadian Press
12/15/2004

BERN, Switzerland (CP) - Tough guy Tie Domi says the NHL's proposal to roll back the salaries of the highest-paid players is an affront to the sport's top attractions.

''The players are really insulted, especially the star players like (Sergei) Fedorov, (Martin) Brodeur and (Mats) Sundin,'' the Toronto Maple Leafs winger said Wednesday. ''These are the guys who are supposed to sell the game.

''It's a real slap in the face for these guys especially. They're really upset about it. They may not say that on camera, but they're really insulted, just like everybody else.''

The locked-out NHL players on the Worldstars tour of Europe were mostly disappointed that talks Tuesday between the league and the NHL Players' Association did not produce an end to the three-month-old dispute.

Last week, the players offered to take an across-the-board 24 per cent pay cut on existing contacts to help settle the stalemate. The league countered Tuesday with a graduated rollback that would see the top salaries cut by as much as 35 per cent while leaving the lowest salaries untouched.

The counter-offer from NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was rejected by the union and there are no further talks scheduled.

Domi, who makes his living protecting Toronto's most skilled players, called the counter-offer ''unacceptable.''

The main concern now is that the two sides won't reach an agreement and the entire 2004-05 season will be scrapped. Brodeur said the league's offer made that a distinct possibility.

''If they want to act like that, they might as well put everybody out of their misery and just do it,'' he said. ''I had a lot of hope.

''I thought Mr. Bettman wanted to get this resolved, but I guess they just want to go one way - to try to bully us to have a salary cap.''

Several players suggested the league doesn't went to negotiate anything but a salary cap.

''The NHL responded with a tough offer, by taking everything we proposed and putting a cap on top of it,'' added Brodeur. ''It just doesn't look like they want to settle anything.''

Defenceman Rob Blake was also pessimistic about the season.

''I was optimistic, but I think I can change that tune pretty quickly, just based on the rejection of our proposal and their counter-offer and the way things broke off,'' he said. ''It doesn't look good.''

Four Worldstars players - Brodeur, Sundin, Blake and Fedorov - are in the highest salary bracket - more than $5 million US per season - and would be most affected if the league's proposal were accepted.

But Brendan Shanahan, who is not far behind the best-paid players, still hopes a deal can be reached so at least a shortened schedule can be played.

''It's encouraging that new proposals are being thrown back and forth,'' he said. ''It's frustrating the way negotiations go, they take time.

''All the players and fans and most of the owners are hoping we can get a season in.''

It's been suggested that by not cutting players making $800,000 or less the league is attempting to divide the union, but Shanahan said it won't work.

''The hockey mentality is that when we're challenged, we grow tighter together,'' he said. ''One player or two might speak out and it might reflect (badly) on the union, but 99 per cent of the union will band together.''

Sundin is another who hasn't lost hope.

''We were hoping they'd be a little closer to our offer and they'd be closer to a solution, but there's still time,'' he said. ''It's a lot of money.

''We saw that and calculated that, but we still want to have a season. We'll see if they come up with another proposal.''

Late Tuesday night, players were huddled around computer screens at the team hotel looking for news of the talks. Most chose not to comment on it until they'd read the full counter-offer and discussed it among themselves and with agents Pat Brisson and J.P. Barry of IMG, who organized the 10-game, seven-country Worldstars tour.

A night's sleep didn't erase the worry that the season may be played.

''I don't feel good about it,'' said Fedorov. ''We put everything out there to make both sides happy.

''I don't know of any instances in which players pay back owners in any business. Obviously, they don't want to have a season.''

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Aquaman]

Negotiators back to the drawing board

Canadian Press
12/15/2004

TORONTO (CP) - The NHL Players' Association is waiting for the NHL to pick up the phone and resume collective bargaining talks.

It likely won't happen until the new year.

There remains time, almost a month, to salvage an NHL season, but Tuesday's events leave few believing a resolution will be reached any time soon.

"Given what's transpired over the last couple of weeks, I'm not optimistic about anything positive taking place in the next few weeks," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said Wednesday. "The players worked very hard on an extremely significant proposal, which was mischaracterized and soundly rebuffed by the NHL."

A good first step, but not nearly good enough is the way the league translated the union's proposal, which featured a 24 per cent salary rollback. The league responded as expected by putting a salary cap on the table Tuesday. That ended talks for the time being.

"I think we're back into a period where we both have to work internally to see where we go from here and how we move the process forward," Bill Daly, the NHL's executive vice-president and chief legal officer, said after landing back in New York on Wednesday. "I'll be the first to give the players an enormous amount of credit for dealing with one of the fundamental issues that had to be dealt with as part of this negotiation. But we can't simply re-set the dial and then take off again.

"We need to talk more and get more on the systemic side to make sure that we have the proper relationship between our revenues and our player costs."

It's not over yet. There was plenty of doom and gloom in December 1994 during the last lockout, with both sides in the labour battle declaring the season lost. But a deal was finally reached on Jan. 11 and a 48-game season was salvaged.

The difference this time around, however, is the solidarity of the owners. They broke ranks 10 years ago and gave up on a salary cap or even a payroll tax. This time around owners appear solidly behind commissioner Gary Bettman and his quest to bring in "cost certainty."

The union was still reeling Wednesday, a day after their offer was shredded behind closed doors by Daly.

"I think the way in which they dealt with our proposal, and the comments that Daly made, that was unfortunate, and I think that says a lot," said Vancouver Canucks veteran Trevor Linden, president of the NHLPA's executive committee.

The union believes more than ever that the NHL doesn't want to negotiate but rather impose a salary cap. That could mean replacement players next year.

In the meantime, don't expect the players to come back with another offer to save the season.

"We're not preparing any counter-proposal," said NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow. "There are no meetings scheduled. My comments at the end of the session (Tuesday) was that both sides should sit back and look at all the factors involved in Gary's lockout.

"There's certainly no initiative here by this committee to take a step at the present time."

The players on the negotiating committee looked as if they had been punched in the stomach after Tuesday's events.

"There's not much optimism for a season starting anytime soon," said Colorado Avalanche defenceman Bob Boughner, a member of the NHLPA's bargaining committee. "We don't have any plans. We put forth our best offer last week and definitely don't have any plans. They didn't give us any reason to really go back to the table and draw up anything new."

Cheers,
Aquaman