Drop Dead Date Set

[calgARI '07]

The final series of negotations are underway.


http://www.tsn.ca/Nhl/news_story.asp?ID=114287&hubName=nhl

[atb9]

Wow, "Drop Dead Date" is a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty"

Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.

[KeithK]

[q]Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.[/q]Would it be wrong to hope that they do?  (Bettman and Goodenow anyway...) :-D

[calgARI '07]

To be more specific as to what happened today, Bettman basically called Goodenow's bluff.  The NHL essentially offered the PA's huge 24% rollback proposal from December 9th.  Then if that doesnt keep payrolls and salaries at a desired level, the NHL's salary cap proposal from a couple weeks ago will be implemented.  The PA rejected it, basically affirming that his December 9th proposal that has been trumpeted by all PA people is garbage.  If they are so confident in that proposal working, then why won't they accept this deal?  Because of it works, then there will be no cap ever. For the first time I am proud to be in the same program Bettman was in.  
More specific points:

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/news/nhl_compromise020905.html

[RichS]

how long will your being "proud" last?   ::laugh::

[DeltaOne81]

I think it more has to do with the fact that the terms of 'conversion' are virtually guaranteed to happen, and are in no way a compromise. If the NHL would be willing to bargain on those, and make them more middle of the road, then the players union should accept and I'd agree with you.

In the meantime:
- the top 3 clubs average is 33% higher than the bottom 3 clubs average? So all they have to do is get 3 owners together and ask them  not to spend much for just one year, and bingo, salary cap.

Put together conditions that are a compromise, and not a trap, and then maybe the NHL will have a good offer.

A another example:
What exactly is the difference between a salary cap at 55%, and an automatic cap kicking in if salaries exceed 55%? Answer: exactly nothing except for one year. Now, had they said that a cap would kick in at 55% or 57% if the salaries ever exceeded, not including revenue from a strong luxury tax, something around 60% - well then, that's still pretty cost certain for the owners, and provide a margin of error for the players. Then I could blame the NHLPA.

But on the good news, I dunno, if there's absolutely any creativity in that room, this could be a major starting point. It shows, for the first time ever, that the NHL is willing to accept a hybrid solution, or at least they have bridged the gap to actually talking about one.

I see a deal of "here's a strong luxury tax and revenue sharing", and if it doesn't do a good job of keeping player salaries down, then we'll automatically increase the luxury tax or move to a cap for X years.

The fact is that I do think the NHLPA thinks the Dec 9th proposal would be successful at keeping costs down, they just aren't willing to bet everything on the fact that it would do the same exact thing as a 55% salary cap - and why would it? if it was identical, they wouldn't have offered it. Yeah, I've rambled on enough.

[DeltaOne81]

From ESPN:
[Q]Because even though it might take some time, the NHL's latest offer is a leg-hold trap that will inevitably tie the players to the type of hard salary cap they refuse to accept. It's a trick, subterfuge, a clever ruse, an end-around given that at least one of the triggers will be set off at the drop of the first puck.

Any time player compensation exceeds 55 percent of league-wide revenues, any time the gap between the average payrolls of the top three clubs and the bottom three clubs exceeds 33 percent, any time any three clubs pay out more than $42 million each in player compensation or any time the league-wide average team payroll exceeds $36.5 million, the players' plan is kaput and the league gets its way.

If those numbers look familiar it's because they are. It is basically the same deal the league has insisted upon from the beginning, but with some smoke and mirrors installed so it looks like the players don't even trust their own proposal to work.[/Q]

Full article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1988026

Its a brilliant piece of spin by Bettman, but the substance of the deal is nada. They're saying "okay, so you won't go with our deal... we'll go with your deal, but if any of the terms of our deal are exceeded, then our deal kicks in". Think about that. Really think about it for a minute. That is absolutely no different from the owners deal, except for 1 and only 1 year. "Oh, and better yet, the hair-triggers are under our control, and lets throw in a couple others which are also incredibly likely to happen."

Let's say you're renting a car, and its some weird rental agency where you can negotiate the terms of the deal. They want you to only drive 50 miles per day. And you say, no, I should be able to drive 100 miles per day. So they say "okay, you can drive 100 miles per day, but if you ever drive more than 50 miles in a day, then for all subsequent days, you can only drive 50 miles." Ummm, excuse me? That's not a deal. "Oh, and while we're at it, if you hit 2 puddles, you can only drive 50 miles per day after that"

[Q]The most telling part of Bettman's address was his rationalization for a proposal that is essentially two different philosophies jammed uncomfortably into the same collective bargaining agreement, as opposed to an actual negotiated settlement.

"We didn't seem to be able to come up with a middle or common ground," Bettman said.

That's because he never looked.[/Q]

[Lauren '06]

[Q]atb9 Wrote:

 Wow, "Drop Dead Date" is a worse misnomer than "Death Tax" and "Marriage Penalty"

Don't be fooled, they won't actually drop dead.[/q]
Way down upon the Swannee River...

Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season.  Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.

[Josh '99]

[Q]Section A Banshee Wrote:
Honestly, I don't see why they're bothering to throw anything together to "try and save" this season.  Might as well work on making everybody happy in an intelligent way and start NEXT season on time, rather than this pile of bogus 11th-hour proposals we've seen in the past few weeks.[/q]I agree completely.  It's really a waste at this point.  What really bothers me is still how long they waited before they even started negotiating.

[Cisco]

I would like to take calgARI on here. This is not proof that the player's proposal is garbage, it is proof that Bettman only wants hockey socialism where the teams who won't spend are guaranteed to make a profit.

The triggers are a sham, and make no sense. Why should two teams get to spend more than 45 million, but the third team would be forced to decide between triggering a cap, or not spending what they want. There would be a race to be one of the two "free" teams (say, Detroit and Philly) and then Toronto, Dallas and Colorado would be left making a rather tought decision. Without a cap, teams can evaluate their own spending needs and abilities.

The Bettman deal is not about good hockey - it never has been. Two small budget teams were in the Stanley Cup finals least year. I'm a Colorado fan, and our large budget team frequently loses to small budget teams (Minnesota 2003). Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. Finally, what is "fair"about redistributing the money that dedicated fans in hockey markets spend to watch their teams. Colorado and Detroit (among others) sell out basically every game, which I contend should reward them with a team that can afford more stars. (Stars do not always win, see the Rangers).

All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. There is a reason Chicago has not done well in the past few years, and it's not because they don't spend money.

A hard cap will dis-incent teams from spending to try and perform, and will do nothing to help the game. If you are Carolina, and you get a hefty redistribution check from the generous fans of Colorado, Detroit, Toronto, Philly etc, then why should you ever try to win?

Cisco

[DeltaOne81]

As a side note, according to that article Peter Karmanos, owner of the Hurricanes, may have been a one to say that the deal was too generous to the players. First of all, if true, this formally proves once and for all that he's stupid, because its the same exact deal the owners were offering, just delayed a year.

Second, this jackass moves a hockey team to North Carolina, heart of ACC basketball and ACC football country, home to NASCAR, and now he has no revenue, few fans, and I'm sure a crappy tv contract - and the players have to pay for this?  Carolina having to move or fold would be the best thing possible to come out of this lockout, I think that's one thing the owners and players should be able to agree on :-D

(in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a long lost Whalers fan, but I don't think that's required to consider the move to Raleigh stupid - it just means we knew that Karmanos was stupid before everyone else ;-) )

[Jordan 04]

*crickets chirping*

Ho-hum.  The NHL?  What's that?

Pitchers and catchers report in a week.  :-D

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Cisco Wrote:
 
Money has very little coorolation to success in the NHL. [/q]

Come on now, that is a ridiculous statement. Here are the last 12 Stanley Cup winners.

2003-04 Tampa Bay Lightning
2002-03 New Jersey Devils
2001-02 Detroit Red Wings
2000-01 Colorado Avalanche
99-2000 New Jersey Devils
1998-99 Dallas Stars
1997-98 Detroit Red Wings
1996-97 Detroit Red Wings
1995-96 Colorado Avalanche
1994-95 New Jersey Devils
1993-94 New York Rangers
1992-93 Montreal Canadiens

The only one outside of the top 10 in payroll is the Tampa Bay Lightning (yes, even the Devils are in the top 10, although often lauded as a a "low-spending team").

As for this being "socialism", if you are the CEO of a company and you see a few wayward middle managers spending way over their budget, wouldn't you want to control their behavior? If you let them run rampant, your company will eventually go under. Bettman understands this, and knows he needs to make sure his business is profitable and sustainable.

The NFL is the most successful sports league in the world (except for possibly NASCAR), and they have a "socialist" system that oppresses players and dooms owners of good teams to give some money to bad ones. Do you see many owners/players running home crying from their lack of money? It is a very logical business model, and nearly everyone comes out profiting in the end. It clearly doesn't eliminate the potential for someone to dominate either, as we can see with the Patriots.

The current NHL proposal gives the players about half of league profits, and that still isn't enough for them.

[ben03]

[Q]Jordan 04 Wrote:

 *crickets chirping*

Ho-hum.  The NHL?  What's that?

Pitchers and catchers report in a week.   [/q]
baseball sucks ::whistle::

[KeithK]

After giving it some thought I do agree that this latest proposal is mostly smoke and mirrors, though it could serve as a starting point for a future deal if the triggers are actually negotiated.   The players say that they're proposed system will control salaries.  The owners think it won't.  So the idea of using the one system until the facts demonstrate that it won't work to control salaries sounds reasonable.  You need triggers that aren't virtually automatic and you probably need some independant mechanism to verify that the owners weren't overspending on purpose to have the cap kick in.

[q]All Bettman and the owners Politburo want is a guarnateed profit regardless of performance. [/q]And what's wrong with that?  That's not socialism, it's good capitalism.  The NHL doesn't exist for the purpose of awarding Lord Stanley's cup to the best hockey players.  It exists to make money.  Period, end of sentence.  Anything the owners can do to guarantee profit is a good business decision.  Now, success on the ice certainly tends to bring fans and money too, but it's no guarantee.