Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Hockey guys and gals...
- Thread starter The_Ghost
- Start date
The NHLPA's side
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.
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.
Owners side
Excerpts from Bettman's speech
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...
Excerpts from Bettman's speech
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...
Rex
New member
I wish these mother fuckers would get it together and play fucking hockey. For all the hockey fans going through withdrawal:
http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieant.../page/download_AWESOME_HOCKEY_FIGHT.html#jump
http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieant.../page/download_AWESOME_HOCKEY_FIGHT.html#jump
Similar threads
