A Deal!

[Habit]

rimmer said:

I may be wrong, but i think escrow money counts towards the cap, too.

R.

You are correct. Escrow count's toward the cap. Mr B didn't have his morning coffiee yet.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habit said:

rimmer said:

I may be wrong, but i think escrow money counts towards the cap, too.

R.

You are correct. Escrow count's toward the cap. Mr B didn't have his morning coffiee yet.

My bad.

Coffee good.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

From The Toronto Star:

Jul. 8, 2005. 08:41 AM

Details of NHL pact in waiting
Reported highlights of the NHL's new collective agreement (all figures U.S.):

#Hard salary cap, linked to 54 per cent of league revenue.

#Salary cap will be $37 million, not including medical and dental benefits or pension payments.

#Top-paid player limited to 20 per cent of team cap, or $7.4 million annually.

#Salary floor set at about $24 million.

#24 per cent rollback of existing contracts.

#15 per cent of salaries held in escrow until season's revenue calculated.

#Maximum earnings of $850,000 in each of first four seasons for entry-level players.

#Minimum salary of $400,000.

#Salary arbitration is baseball style (arbitrator chooses between either the player's proposed salary or the owner's).

#Bonuses restricted and standardized according to a formula that includes points, ice time, plus/minus.

#Six-year deal.

#Revenue sharing: Top 10 teams give percentage of money to small-market teams at season's end.

#10-day period after ratification of agreement for teams to sign their 2003 draftees and reserve list players

#Free agency stays at age 31 for first year of contract, drops to 30 for second year, 28 for remaining four years.

#Each team has equal chance at Sidney Crosby in draft lottery.

#Players will participate in Turin Olympics in February.

#All-star game cancelled.

[Ryan]

It might end up really easy to pick apart and criticize this deal 3-5 years from now, but I have to say this looks like an incredible CBA without having seen it in practice.

It's too bad that Goodenow couldn't step-up and make a deal like this last year at this time. I feel he would have come out looking like a hero for saving the sport and essentially falling on his sword for the good of the game. But all indications are that Uncle Bob just pouted in a corner this whole time while a group headed by Linden crafted the deal with the league.

The players will take a lot of well deserved heat once the deal is announced. Yes, they fell for Goodenow's game but ignorance is no excuse. You hired him, shouldn't you be in control of him? But after that has died down everyone will be able to agree this is the deal that saved the NHL and congratulations to all involved.

[Boston_Habs]

It will be interesting to see if the smallest markets (Edmonton, Ottawa) can support a $24mm salary floor without either large cash infusions from ownership or significant revenue sharing.

My view is that if you're still crying poor with an economic arrangement like this, then bye bye.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Props to the Toronto Star for publishing, in summary form, the gist of Helene Elliott's article from yesterday; after she had been showered with a fair amount of flak.

Of course,the actual contents of the CBA remain to be seen.

[BadCompany]

ryan said:

It might end up really easy to pick apart and criticize this deal 3-5 years from now, but I have to say this looks like an incredible CBA without having seen it in practice.

It's too bad that Goodenow couldn't step-up and make a deal like this last year at this time. I feel he would have come out looking like a hero for saving the sport and essentially falling on his sword for the good of the game. But all indications are that Uncle Bob just pouted in a corner this whole time while a group headed by Linden crafted the deal with the league.

The players will take a lot of well deserved heat once the deal is announced. Yes, they fell for Goodenow's game but ignorance is no excuse. You hired him, shouldn't you be in control of him? But after that has died down everyone will be able to agree this is the deal that saved the NHL and congratulations to all involved.

I doubt very much Goodenow could have stood up and told his players on Day 1 of the lockout “lets accept a salary cap, linkage, a 24% paycut, 15% of your pay held by owners who may or may not give it back to you, a 25% paycut for rookies, a more owner-favorable arbitration system, a more owner-favorable qualifying offer system, and oh yeah, if you sacrifice personal stats for team glory, you ain’t going to get a dime.”

The players got crushed. If Goodenow had of suggested they accept this deal in the beginning, the players would have laughed him out of the union. Personally, I think Goodenow’s strategy was actually working (hold the laughter please). He told everybody right from the beginning that he thought it would take 18 to 24 months to get a deal done. The players caved in less than 10. In the meantime, the owners were seeing their legal strategies tossed out of courts from East to West. They lost in BC, they lost in Quebec, and the indications are that despite this magnificently pro-owner US Labor Board, they were going to lose there too. They wouldn’t have been able to ice replacement players in Vancouver or Montreal, and it was looking like 50-50 that the Labor Board was going to smack them with a baseball-type unfair practices ruling, and force them to use the old CBA (as they did to MLB in 95). Their own GM’s told them that they didn’t think any of their players were going to cross a picket line, despite media proclamations to the contrary (name 7 Habs you think would have crossed). At best, they were looking at 20 empty US buildings if they managed to squeak the scab plan through. Credit ratings were down-grading their business operations, TV deals were falling through, and even the media was starting to talk about how “both sides were being stupid.”

But the players just didn’t have the stomach to follow Goodenow’s strategy to the end. He told them it would take until at least this Christmas, and probably longer, and while at first they thought they could wait that long, in the end, guys like Linden and Damphousse, Roenick, Iginla and Pronger (those greedy SOBs!) just wanted to get back playing.

As for this being the deal that saved the NHL, I’m not so convinced. Going a year without hockey – a sport that was dying in the fan’s eyes already – is not going to be good, no matter what economic system they put in place. The St. Louis Blues have already said they will continue to lose money, even with the new CBA, and I don’t think they are going to be the only ones.

The owners whole strategy was based on “this deal is only going to get worse, because the longer it goes on, the less money there is going to be.” People forget that less money for the players means less money for the owners too. A lot of these teams that were losing money were doing so with payrolls already within the cap range. How are they going make money now that most people think their product is the laughingstock of the sporting world?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

ryan said:

It might end up really easy to pick apart and criticize this deal 3-5 years from now, but I have to say this looks like an incredible CBA without having seen it in practice.

It's too bad that Goodenow couldn't step-up and make a deal like this last year at this time. I feel he would have come out looking like a hero for saving the sport and essentially falling on his sword for the good of the game. But all indications are that Uncle Bob just pouted in a corner this whole time while a group headed by Linden crafted the deal with the league.

The players will take a lot of well deserved heat once the deal is announced. Yes, they fell for Goodenow's game but ignorance is no excuse. You hired him, shouldn't you be in control of him? But after that has died down everyone will be able to agree this is the deal that saved the NHL and congratulations to all involved.

Hindsight is 20/20. No guts, no glory. You can't win 'em all. Et cetera.

Also:

Goodenow continues to monitor the final phases of the CBA talks, which continued in New York. NHLPA spokesperson Jonathan Weatherdon released a statement late yesterday:

"Whenever a tentative agreement is reached, the (union) will have meetings where all players will be invited to attend and every player's questions will be answered by Bob and the executive committee prior to a ratification vote by the full membership taking place.

"The proposed agreement and everything that has occurred will be reviewed in great detail. Throughout these negotiations, players have received and had more access to information than ever before."

Bettman will no doubt emerge a hero in the eyes of small market teams for bringing in the cap and avenging a perceived owners' defeat in the 1994 CBA war. But there will be a significant number of rich franchises who saw the hardball tactics of a season-long work stoppage as the wrong approach and now aren't thrilled about rebuilding teams with almost half their pre-lockout payroll.

Though the dissenters, likely including the Maple Leafs, Wings and Colorado Avalanche, won't have the will or sufficient numbers to stop approval of a new deal, Bettman is still faced with complaints ranging from the stale game on the ice to lack of TV coverage and exposure in the U.S.

But a change at the top for either group won't be a quick and easy process.

Goodenow has three years remaining on a six-year pact.

Bettman can only be unseated by a majority vote of the 30-member of board of governors.

www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/07/07/1120812-sun.html

*

I agree that the bottom line for the game of hockey hasn't looked this good for a long time—contraction remains a very real possibility for the NHL, though.

I swear to God, if I hear owners whining about how they can't find "cost certainty" under this arrangement, I'll...

[Boston_Habs]

I won't hold the laughter. Bah!

Saying to the players that it will take 18-24 months and 2 lost seasons to get a player-friendly deal isn't a strategy. It's suicide and the height of arrogant entitlement. How can you say that Goodenow's strategy was working and the players just didn't have the stomach to carry it out? It's akin to being a general in WWI and saying to my soldiers - "just keep walking into the gunfire boys, eventually the other side will run out of bullets."

The players got crushed but it's not because they didn't wait out the owners long enough. It's because they listened to an idiot who didn't realize that he wasn't dealing from a position of strength. If Big Shot Bob had gone to the players with a position that a salary cap is inevitable and we should try and negotiate an NBA-stye "soft cap" then the owners may have taken the bait to get a much better system without losing a season.

BC - I think you're being wayyyy too apologetic for Goodenow and his disastrous role in the process.

[BadCompany]

bostonhabs said:

I won't hold the laughter. Bah!

Saying to the players that it will take 18-24 months and 2 lost seasons to get a player-friendly deal isn't a strategy. It's suicide and the height of arrogant entitlement.

Perhaps. But its exactly what Goodenow said, right from the beginning. He never hid his strategy, and if you want to fault anybody fault the players for not believing that was exactly what he was going to do.

bostonhabs said:

How can you say that Goodenow's strategy was working and the players just didn't have the stomach to carry it out? It's akin to being a general in WWI and saying to my soldiers - "just keep walking into the gunfire boys, eventually the other side will run out of bullets."

A strategy that was used by generals pretty much up until the end of World War I. Because until bullets became virtually limitless, it was a strategy that worked. Do the owners have limitless bullets, i.e. money and fans?

bostonhabs said:

The players got crushed but it's not because they didn't wait out the owners long enough. It's because they listened to an idiot who didn't realize that he wasn't dealing from a position of strength. If Big Shot Bob had gone to the players with a position that a salary cap is inevitable and we should try and negotiate an NBA-stye "soft cap" then the owners may have taken the bait to get a much better system without losing a season.

That’s debatable. Personally, I think the owners never had any intention of dealing with the players, and were out to crush the union right from the get-go. I’ve said as much for months now. They never offered the players any concessions, even non-monetary ones, which could have made swallowing a salary cap more palpable. For example, saying something like “look, we know you don’t want a salary cap, but we absolutely need one, so we’ll give you UFA at 27, and eliminate the draft pick compensation for RFA’s (which pretty much makes them untouchable as free agents), and we’ll increase roster size by 1 or 2 players, thus giving you another 30-60 new jobs.” Would the players have gone for that? We’ll never know, because the owners never made any attempt to get a deal that wasn’t 100% exactly what they offered. The deal the players are accepting now is virtually the same deal the owners offered on Day 1 of the lockout. That’s not negotiation, that’s union-crushing.

bostonhabs said:

BC - I think you're being wayyyy too apologetic for Goodenow and his disastrous role in the process.

Perhaps, though I’m not sure what else he could have done. Like I said, he couldn’t really offer his players the deal on Day 1 that they are being forced to accept now, and the owners not once made any sign that they were going to concede on any other level. He could have tried to negotiate a soft-salary cap, but the owners made it clear they weren’t going to accept that either. His only options were capitulate immediately, or fight until the bitter end. Either way he was going to lose (his job).

[Ryan]

With all due respect BC, IMO you give Goodenow entirely too much credit.

Everyday when I negotiate rates with my suppliers I know approximately where we're going to end up. I start out low, they start out high, and eventually we're right where we both knew we would be.

If Bob's whole plan was to wait out billionaire owners for 2 years at which point they would come crawling to him, then he might be the dumbest man on earth.

Everyone in the hockey world, except for Goodenow, knew where the deal would end up. Goodenow should have recognized that he had the upper hand very early on (the past 3 years) and could have used his advantage to negotiate a much better cap system for the players.

Crushing defeat for the players, and overwhelming victory for the owners. Agreed, not all franchises can/will survive even under these conditions, but that speaks more to problems in those specific hockey markets than it does the condition of the league. If the NHL winds up a 22 team league with 22 very healthy and competitive franchises, that's absolutely fine with me.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

What the owners appear to have "won" is a reprieve—let's see how they do with it over the next 6 years.

If agreements in other major sports leagues are any yardstick, the "battle" is far from over.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

ryan said:

Everyday when I negotiate rates with my suppliers I know approximately where we're going to end up. I start out low, they start out high, and eventually we're right where we both knew we would be.

Have your suppliers ever locked you out before negotiations have begun, just to make a point about who's boss?

*

Well, it does seem that Goodenow started out high and Bettman started out low (wasn't he months ago looking for a $30-32M cap?), and the twain have met.

[Ryan]

mrbozo said:

What the owners appear to have "won" is a reprieve—let's see how they do with it over the next 6 years.

If agreements in other major sports leagues are any yardstick, the "battle" is far from over.

It certainly helps to "idiot-proof" the league...something that was sorely needed since a lot of owners and GMs act like idiots.

[Boston_Habs]

[quote author=badcompany board=general thread=1120739436 post=1120839058

The owners whole strategy was based on “this deal is only going to get worse, because the longer it goes on, the less money there is going to be.” [/quote]

That wasn't just strategy, that was fact, which speaks to the flaw in Goodenow's logic. To believe that there would be a league worth salvaging after 2 lost seasons is stupefyingly dumb. Which is why I don't think that was ever really BG's strategy as you pointed out. Maybe he was just covering his ass or signaling to the owners that the players were prepared to wait it out, just like the owners' "scab" option was just a smoke screen to up the ante, but everybody knew that wasn't a viable option either. Just part of the negotiating dance. No - I just think Bob Goodenow flat out miscalculated where the "market" was for a new CBA and was arrogant enough that he didn't want to be the one that presided over a CBA that invloved major give-backs from the players.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

July 07, 2005

Paper Tiger, Crouching Agents

The Los Angeles Times is reporting an agreement while TSN isn't quite as optimistic. Both stories are probably correct. Helene Elliot of the Times adds this tidbit:

Players will debate and vote at a meeting that could be contentious; if they approve...

It could be contentious? If they approve? It will be contentious, and the players may very well not approve, particularly once player agents comb through it. Two facts come out of this fiasco:

1) The deal significantly reduces the influence of player agents on salary levels and increases the influence of the NHLPA and the collective bargaining agreement. The NHLPA is being turned into a much more traditional union, a union that actually negotiates the wage of the various classes of employees. One clause reported by Elliote says the deal will "limit the salary of any single player to 20% of the team cap figure in any year".

Does Jarome Iginla need a player agent to negotiate a salary for him? Why does he need Don Meehan?

2) While the new economic system increases the influence of the NHLPA the past year has clearly demonstrated that the NHLPA has no power. They sacrificed a year - and $1.2 billion - so they could concede every single important issue. Anyone who suggests the NHLPA should have taken the February offer is wrong because there was no February offer, but there is absolutely no doubt that the NHLPA could have signed this deal last September.

That makes the NHLPA a worthless organization, not because there was a miscalculation, but because it has no power. This is a far more critical point going forward than a Goodenow miscalculation. It means that he could not calculate it correctly and firing him won't change anything. It means that the NHLPA gives the owners whatever they want or the NHLPA fights and loses. That's the lesson of this labour war.

If all the NHLPA can do is concede on all issues, having a union is silly. All it does is provide a shield against anti-trust for the league. The NHLPA is forcing Sidney Crosby to take far less than he would get if the NHLPA did not exist. The NHLPA is forcing Jarome Iginla to take far less than he would get if the NHLPA did not exist. The salary cap will force the Matt Cookes and Sean Averys of the world to take less than they would get if the NHLPA did not exist.

David Tanabe of the Phoenix Coyotes has been quoted as saying he thinks ratification will be a 50/50 affair. It is hard to know whether Tanabe is indulging in wishful thinking because if he's out for his own best interest, he votes no. He may be hoping it will go down or it may be that he is counting noses and the vote will indeed be very close.

Which players wouldn't get more if the NHLPA did not exist? Why does the NHLPA exist? Why collectively bargain at all? If the Union cannot prevent the employer from dictating the agreement, what is its purpose? Why do skilled employees need a union that exists to protect employers from each other?

I think a number of players will be asking those questions. The player agents have a duty to provide advice and it is not difficult to imagine how they will feel about an agreement that limits their influence, limits their income and increases the influence of the NHLPA over salary levels when the NHLPA has been exposed as a paper tiger unable to protect the collective.

Why would players and player agents want a paper tiger to negotiate salary levels in the NHL? It's easy to see why the owners want a house union, but the players? I don't think Ritch Winter will be the only player agent to speak out about the proposed agreement and I doubt if many of them will be singing his tune.

A contentious ratification meeting? No kidding.

- www.canuckscorner.com/weblog/nhllog/archives/2005/07/paper_tiger_cro.html

[Yeti]

The bottom line is, it's a fair deal for both parties. If revenues go up, players' salaries will go up. It made sense since day 1. If they can improve the game, the cap could go up to 42 or 45 miilions as early as next year. The NHLPA was running against the wind since day 1, against common sense and against public opinion... Bob Notgoodenough went on a power trip and is now coming down to earth...

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Wanted: Bus Drivers for Montreal Transit Commission.

Salary $15.00 to $23.00 per hour. 15% of salary deposited into escrow account, if MUCTC loses money for the year escrow funds are forfited. If ridership exceeds 275,000 passengers per day, salary cap is set at $17.75 per hour. All drivers roll back their current salaries 24% from 2003 earnings. All rookie drivers are frozen at $8.00 per hour for three years. Drivers can bid to drive metro at age 30, dropping to age 28 in three years. Getting silly. Drop the damn puck!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

BC,

I honestly feel Goodenow didn't act in the best interests of the NHLPA. I'm just too tired to look it up right now, but I think I remember hearing on Sportsdesk that Goodenow acted unilaterally on the final NHLPA offer. Apparently they went in with a $49 million cap (or there abouts) and Goodenow decided it should have been over $50 million. Why he did this is speculative at best (I'm not an expert but I think saving a portion of his ego may have had something to do with it). But, the action undermined the efforts of the NHLPA.

However, I agree with you insomuch as the owners had no intention of negotiating with the NHLPA. I think the notion of destroying the association came later in the process, moreso as the PA began to splinter. In short, Goodenow should find another job once the new deal is said and done.

Ditto Bettman. He may have gotten the cap he wanted, but his attempt to sell the game in the USA through expansion and his inability to land a major US television deal, have not worked out. I also believe that while the cap will create a margin of parity in the league (financially speaking anyway) we still may see several teams pack up south of the border. Would that be a bad thing?

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Expert Says Deal Is Good for the NHL
Cost-control measures should help bring financial health back to the league and enhance level of competition, Oregon's Swangard says.

By Helene Elliott
Times Staff Writer

July 8, 2005

The NHL's adoption of a hard salary cap linked to 54% of league-wide revenues, tight entry-level salary limits and other cost controls in the soon-to-be-finished collective bargaining agreement will give the league a solid economic base and enhance its competitiveness by putting teams on a closer footing, a prominent sports marketing expert said Thursday.

Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon and an avid hockey fan since childhood, said the foundation of the labor agreement as outlined in The Times on Wednesday "is the economic model we've all believed was needed, those of us who follow this as a business. It sets the league up to be successful in the only way it could be successful."

However, he said that the NHL might be miscalculating if it bases its $37-million salary cap, $24-million payroll minimum and other provisions on projected revenues of $1.8 billion. The league had revenues of $2.1 billion in 2002-03 but has since lost its TV deal with ABC/ESN and is likely to lose sponsors because of the lockout imposed by Commissioner Gary Bettman last Sept. 15.

"The idea of $1.8 billion seems ambitious," Swangard said. "Is it impossible? No. It's not a number that you laugh at. But you sort of worry that it's going to be ambitious. The silver lining is teams will have the ability to tie personnel expenditures to whatever that number will be….

"The NHL was perceived as one of the mansions of professional sport but in truth, it was lying on a fault line. Hockey needs to grow to be the sport it always wanted to be, and this is the framework that will allow it to do that."

A prominent agent said that while it will take time for agents, general managers and players to adapt to the new economic system, he expects the deal will be workable.

"If what we're hearing is right, this will be OK," the agent said. "We're not rolling over and dying. We'll be able to survive."

Sources familiar with the negotiations told The Times that the NHL and the players' association had agreed in principle on a labor pact that would for the first time institute sweeping cost controls, which the league had sought after contending player costs had consumed as much as 76% of its revenues.

Revenue sharing will be introduced by having the top 10 revenue-earning teams contribute to a pool from which the bottom-10 can draw. Existing contracts and qualifying offers will be cut by 24%, and players will place 15% of their salary each season into an escrow account until league revenues are calculated. If spending on salaries exceeds 54%, the difference will be paid to the teams; if it's less than 54%, the money will go back to players.

The lottery for this year's entry draft will give every team at least one chance at the No. 1 pick, Sidney Crosby. Teams that missed the playoffs each of the previous three seasons will have three chances, a source said.

The disposition of 2004-05 contracts, which had been a major point of contention, will be resolved in the league's favor, another source said. About a dozen items remain in flux because of disputed language, but those will not derail the talks.

The league and the union, which met on Thursday in New York, separately denied that an agreement in principle had been reached. Nonetheless, several sources said that negotiations will end today or Saturday and that the NHL's executive committee will review the documents on Monday in New York before passing them to the Board of Governors for a vote late next week. The union is expected to debate and vote after that.

Swangard predicted the reborn NHL will be more appealing than the pre-lockout version.

"I absolutely believe this framework is going to make it exciting," he said. "On any night a fan can go to an arena and see an entertaining game with a win or a loss and at a reasonable price….

"The other benefit of this economic model is I think it makes the sponsors happy. Other leagues, such as the NFL and AVP, rely on sponsors to promote the sport, and when the business is in a better state of affairs sponsors are more willing to invest dollars."

Times staff writer Chris Foster contributed to this report.

- tinyurl.com/9lurl

[Cranky]

The billionaires screwed the wannabe multimillionaires....I am holding back the tears.

Godenough terribly underestimated what the owners were willing to do to take back control of their businesses. Yes, this was a slaughter but it was a justified slaughter of players who based everything on entitlement and greed.

Back in the early 80's, one of the companies I worked for shut their production because the union had sold the members a load of bull that the company will pay them as much as they wanted because they were ENTITLED to it. I heard what the union was promising and for every second of it, I shook my head. The company had many other plants, the company was not making money because we were in a recession, the company was KNOWN anti union and the company paid it's employees VERY WELL. And yet, the union leadership insisted that the company will CAVE. Oh yeah.....they shut down the plant.

One of the problems is that these type of negotiations involve a lot of brinkmanship. "They will pay us or else" screams the union leadership. Members get filled with false entitlement to keep them "cooking" so as to go along with the "all else". This exactly what Goodenow was trying to sell all along but the longer it went, the harder it got. The "market", aka fans, where not going to sit still rotting on the shelf waiting for the product. On top of all this, the product IS the players and they have a shelf life too. How long do you fight if your career drips away?

All in all, the players where at a disadvantage from day one but the union leadership FAILED to recognize and negotiate from that position. That failure resulted in a worse deal then could otherwise be gotten. The players have no choice but to fire the union leadership.

[PTH]

Goodenow didn't give himself much of a chance; for 2 years now the NHL has wanted to talk, and Goodenow refused to discuss a new CBA. It was clear that the new CBA was going to be a major change, and by waiting it out he made the situation worse. Examining the Levitt report in depth, he could have proposed models that might have been good enough for the owners to choose them over sacrificing a season. It's as if Goodenow didn't want to believe that teams were losing money and thought that the owners would cave in - he gambled and lost, and by not having discussed seriously ahead of time, he'd raised the stakes and wound up losing even more.

If Goodenow examined the Levitt report, told the players that some changes might be needed rather than tell them to prepare for a fight, etc.... who knows.

Still, maybe there was nothing he could do - maybe it took a hard stance (from the players) for the rich teams to accept that revenue sharing was a required element for a cap to be put in place. Otherwise, the Bettman-proposed 30-million cap might have been adopted without revenue sharing, which would be the worst possible outcome for players, since they'd be paid according to what Edmonton could afford, but the owners would be collecting from New York, Toronto, LA, etc.

Goodenow made many mistakes, but maybe there just was no other way than to lose a season, to get a decent CBA, given that:
-owners don't like revenue sharing (especially the rich, influential ones)
-players don't like caps (especially the rich, influential ones)

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Goodenow reportedly signed a 6-year, $20 million contract extension in 2002, but decided not to get paid during the lockout.

Does the NHLPA have a one-time 2/3 buyout option on the remaining portion?

[seventeen]

pth said:

Goodenow made many mistakes, but maybe there just was no other way than to lose a season, to get a decent CBA, given that:
-owners don't like revenue sharing (especially the rich, influential ones)
-players don't like caps (especially the rich, influential ones)

I think that's pretty well it. Human nature. You get used to a level of work and a standard of living and you believe that's normal and a base. To have someone suggest you should accept less and work harder is hard to stomach and usually the only way you accept it is to experience a worse situation. I always said the players would cave in first because they couldn't maintain their standard of living with their lockout dues, while the owners could. Goodenow's error was in not recognizing that and negotiating an owner friendly deal before the owners recognized how weak the NHLPA's position would be as any strike/lockout progressed. Perhaps Bob was too used to his own salary and perks.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Should the NHLPA have Accepted an Earlier League Offer?

[franko]

mrbozo said:

Should the NHLPA have Accepted an Earlier League Offer?

Thanks for the link/reminder of what has gone on before. I had been trying to remember -- was there ever an actual "offer"? I remembered "proposals" but didn't think they counted.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

I guess I don't understand the principle of a contract, but if I a player has a contract with a team to play hockey for $9,000,000; that is a two party agreement of remuneration for consideration.
How can a third party, the NHLPA void the contract and reduce it by 24%. Some players who are near retirement age will certainly walk and have their lawyers sue for the full value of the contract. I have no love or respect for Yashin, but it seems to me that if the Islanders were stupid enough to contractually obligate themselves to pay him a certain amount for a fixed number of years, he is entitled to the expectation that they will honor that contract. The fact that the NHLPA offers to modify the contract should not affect a previously signed agreement. It would be interesting to see him go home and let his lawyers seek damages for the Islanders failure to live up to their agreement.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

mrbozo said:

ryan said:

It might end up really easy to pick apart and criticize this deal 3-5 years from now, but I have to say this looks like an incredible CBA without having seen it in practice.

It's too bad that Goodenow couldn't step-up and make a deal like this last year at this time. I feel he would have come out looking like a hero for saving the sport and essentially falling on his sword for the good of the game. But all indications are that Uncle Bob just pouted in a corner this whole time while a group headed by Linden crafted the deal with the league.

The players will take a lot of well deserved heat once the deal is announced. Yes, they fell for Goodenow's game but ignorance is no excuse. You hired him, shouldn't you be in control of him? But after that has died down everyone will be able to agree this is the deal that saved the NHL and congratulations to all involved.

Hindsight is 20/20. No guts, no glory. You can't win 'em all. Et cetera.

Also:

Goodenow continues to monitor the final phases of the CBA talks, which continued in New York. NHLPA spokesperson Jonathan Weatherdon released a statement late yesterday:

"Whenever a tentative agreement is reached, the (union) will have meetings where all players will be invited to attend and every player's questions will be answered by Bob and the executive committee prior to a ratification vote by the full membership taking place.

"The proposed agreement and everything that has occurred will be reviewed in great detail. Throughout these negotiations, players have received and had more access to information than ever before."

Bettman will no doubt emerge a hero in the eyes of small market teams for bringing in the cap and avenging a perceived owners' defeat in the 1994 CBA war. But there will be a significant number of rich franchises who saw the hardball tactics of a season-long work stoppage as the wrong approach and now aren't thrilled about rebuilding teams with almost half their pre-lockout payroll.

Though the dissenters, likely including the Maple Leafs, Wings and Colorado Avalanche, won't have the will or sufficient numbers to stop approval of a new deal, Bettman is still faced with complaints ranging from the stale game on the ice to lack of TV coverage and exposure in the U.S.

But a change at the top for either group won't be a quick and easy process.

Goodenow has three years remaining on a six-year pact.

Bettman can only be unseated by a majority vote of the 30-member of board of governors.

www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hockey/2005/07/07/1120812-sun.html

*

I agree that the bottom line for the game of hockey hasn't looked this good for a long time—contraction remains a very real possibility for the NHL, though.

I swear to God, if I hear owners whining about how they can't find "cost certainty" under this arrangement, I'll...

I agree that the new CBA will be a godsend for the small market teams and will allow them to compete profitably, but it will also guarantee the leafs and Rockies capped costs and huge profits without making them seem miserly to their fans. It won't give big income teams huge competitive advantage on the ice, but they will still have an advantage in attracting players and huge war chests for their stockholders. Harold Ballard is smiling somewhere.

[Habit]

habsfaninla said:

Wanted: Bus Drivers for Montreal Transit Commission.

Salary $15.00 to $23.00 per hour. 15% of salary deposited into escrow account, if MUCTC loses money for the year escrow funds are forfited. If ridership exceeds 275,000 passengers per day, salary cap is set at $17.75 per hour. All drivers roll back their current salaries 24% from 2003 earnings. All rookie drivers are frozen at $8.00 per hour for three years. Drivers can bid to drive metro at age 30, dropping to age 28 in three years. Getting silly. Drop the damn puck!

Let's see... what is a players take home pay?

Jagr: 2003/2004 salary: $11,000,000

$11M - 24% = $8,360,000 but...

20% of Cap = $7,500,000

-15 % in Escrow = $6,375,000

- 3% to Agent = $6,150,000

- 7.7% NY Income tax = $5,572,500

I think even Modano's dog might be able to live on that.

[Cranky]

habsfaninla said:

I guess I don't understand the principle of a contract, but if I a player has a contract with a team to play hockey for $9,000,000; that is a two party agreement of remuneration for consideration.
How can a third party, the NHLPA void the contract and reduce it by 24%. Some players who are near retirement age will certainly walk and have their lawyers sue for the full value of the contract. I have no love or respect for Yashin, but it seems to me that if the Islanders were stupid enough to contractually obligate themselves to pay him a certain amount for a fixed number of years, he is entitled to the expectation that they will honor that contract. The fact that the NHLPA offers to modify the contract should not affect a previously signed agreement. It would be interesting to see him go home and let his lawyers seek damages for the Islanders failure to live up to their agreement.

This is an interesting point.

If the NHLPA is truly acts as a normal union, then any contracts within the membership CAN be modified. If the NHLPA is an association, then the contracts can not be modified.

Needless to say, if Yashin wins then the NHLPA takes a huge hit. If he loses, the NHLPA can claim that it's a true union.

One needs to remember that a collective bargaining agreement binds all members to that agreement. If some members lose out, then it falls under "too bad".

I would rejoice if Ya$hin disappeared from hockey.