nyr34 said:
Yeah same here, I'm truly disgusted with the NHL hard stance. They are single-handedly causing the lockout negotiations to turn sour by refusing to negotiate in any way shape or form. It's a shame no one here see's this. Don't get me wrong I was indifferent towards the cap, but you can't expect one side to cave, you have to find middle ground. That's something the NHL is refusing to do.
Now, though for comedy's sake, I hope there is a hard cap so that I can see those staunch supporters of it come crying back in a couple years because their team had to be disbanded at the end of the year becuase they had too many good players that now want to be paid accordingly. Under the cap system = no more powerhouse and exciting teams.
Don't say I never told you...
Up until the abortive attempts by Linden to get things moving I was convinced that the NHL had to be interested in coming to an agreement – surely they were not really serious about not playing for a full year.
I have changed my mind now that I look at the negotiations in hindsight. IMHO the NHL determined long ago that they would have to burn this season to gain negotiating leverage over the players. The $300 million lockout fund should have been the red flag.
The NHLPA has been proactive. The NHL has been reactive almost to the point of being comatose.
Contrary to Bettman's claims, the NHLPA met with the NHL in 2003. There were nine days of meetings in late March to early April. Goodenow and Bettman had 13 separate meetings following that which culminated in a meeting with reps from both sides in Toronto for two days in early October.
At the Toronto meeting the NHLPA made the first offer. The major features were:
- an immediate five percent pay cut
-dropping the entry-level salary cap to $850,000 from the current $1.25 million
-limiting some of the entry-level bonuses that have been used to get around the entry-level salary cap
-a revenue-sharing system that would place a luxury tax on teams going over an agreed limit on salaries. Under the proposal, there would be taxes on regular-season and playoff gates, and a payroll tax based on gate revenue. The money collected would be put into a pool and distributed to teams at the bottom the revenue generating list. Teams would have been taxed ten cents on the dollar for anything spent on payroll above $40 million. If a team exceeded $50 million in payroll the tax would increase to 20 cents on the dollar. The tax would go to 30 cents on the dollar for teams whose payroll went over $60 million.
The owners immediately rejected the proposal and the meetings shut down.
It took the NHL
13 MONTHS to respond with its six "scenarios" which could just as easily been scribbled on napkin. It was an exercise in how you could say "salary cap" six different ways in as few words as possible. It addressed none of the other major issues such as arbitration, free agency, revenue sharing, etc. If you think I am exaggerating go look at them on the NHL.com CBA site. This what was proposed on August 4, 2004 at a two hour meeting in Toronto:
1.) A hard salary cap imposed on payrolls that teams would not be allowed to exceed.
2.) A Performance-Based Salary System, in which a player's individual compensation would be based, in part, on negotiated objective criteria and, in part, on individual and team performance.
3.) A Payroll Range System in which teams could spend within a negotiated range of payrolls.
4.) A system premised on the Centralized Negotiation of Player Contracts, where the League would negotiate individual player contracts, either with players and their agents or with the Union directly.
5.) A Player Partnership Payroll Plan (P-4), which would involve individual player compensation being individually negotiated on the basis of "units" allocated for regular-season payrolls, supplemented by lucrative bonuses for team playoff performance.
6.) A Salary Slotting System, which would contemplate each team being assigned a series of "salary slots" at various levels, each of which would be allocated among each team's players pursuant to individual player-team negotiation.
This was in response to the players' comprehensive proposal of 13 month's earlier. The players asked for more detail as the six scenarios were extremely sketchy.
At a five hour meeting on August 17, 2004 in New Jersey the players tried to get some sense from the owner's of how the 6 scenarios fit in the larger scheme of a CBA but the NHL said until the NHLPA agreed to a cap they would not explore those issues. The NHLPA then requested further financial information from the league. Bill Daly criticized the NHLPA for not coming right back with a further proposal at the meeting. The players responded through Saskin "We need to get to a common understanding and find some common ground and that's really what we're trying to do with the dialogue that was undertaken today. So hopefully we can put together proposals that address the issues in a meaningful way."
The players asked for further meetings which were scheduled for the next week with two days in Ottawa and 2 days in Montreal. The players pressed for more financial information on the individual teams at the meetings but the NHL resisted with Daly complaining he was frustrated with the union's requests for individual team information - the same information he complained they had kept asking for during the past five years. Well DUH!!!
On September 9, 2004 the players brought forward another comprehensive proposal. It involved a luxury tax that would raise about $30 million to $35 million a year to be redistributed to low revenue teams. It also contained a five per cent rollback on all existing player contracts (rather than one time 5% cut) that the union said was "calculated to generate over $100 million in savings over the next few years." The proposal also contained further changes to the entry level system that the NHLPA estimated would create another $60 million in savings. There was also an enhanced revenue sharing plan put forward.
The luxury tax had been scaled back at Bettman's request from the previous NHLPA because he claimed that it would not be saleable to the owners. Bettman rejected the offer that same day, September 9, 2004 and then criticized it as "a step backwards in the process" referring to the lower luxury tax that he had asked to be included.
The NHL made no counter proposal and the players were locked out.
There were no counter proposal from the NHL after the lockout and no further meetings were held.
On December 2, 2004 the players asked a meeting to be scheduled for December 9, 2004 at which time they indicated they would make a new proposal.
On December 9, 2004 the NHLPA dropped a 230 page bombshell that seemed to not only shock and awe the NHL but a substantial number of their own members. Some NHLPA members had grumbled about the previous 5% cut offered by the NHLPA - they were speechless at the 24% rollback which was front and centre in the new offer. Due to the larger salary rollback, the union altered its luxury tax proposal. It would start with a 20 cents on the dollar tax for payrolls that exceed $45 million. The tax would increase to 50 cents on the dollar for payrolls over $50 million and 60 cents on the dollar if a payroll tops $60 million. The proposal also offered changes to salary arbitration, qualifying offers and the entry-level system. It also includes a significant revenue sharing plan to lessen the gap between high-revenue and low-revenue teams. The revenue-sharing plan redistributed $65 million from high revenue teams to low revenue teams. The union said the plan shrinks the difference between the highest and lowest revenue teams from $76 million to $58 million. This was huge step forward for the NHL which only shares about 9% of its revenues compared to about 35% in MLB and the NBA and almost 70% in the NFL. The high revenue teams must have had a heart attack.
If you recall the look on Bettman's face he looked like he had just taken a shot to the solar plexus - clearly he was not expecting an offer with this level of givebacks and the revenue-sharing plan must of had him checking the buy-out provisions of his contract.
Four days later an internal NHL memo was leaked and it was clear that the NHL was going to reject the NHLPA offer. Bill Daly wrote:
"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. 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."
Daly seems to have missed the fact that there was something that would prevent the dollars saved from being re-directed back in future - exercise some control and quit hiring financial idiots. THE NHL spin was clear.
In the memo Daly re-stated the NHL opposition to a luxury tax of any sort and indicated that the only interest in amending the arbitration process the league had was in eliminating it completely. He also indicated the entry level salaries and bonuses needed to be suppressed further and qualifying offers substantially reduced. He made it clear that any significant revenue sharing between the teams was anathema but allowed there could be some sharing of a portion of play-off revenues. Great - Calgary and Tampa Bay would send money to Chicago, Boston. Toronto, Colorado, Detroit and Dallas. Way to "re-distribute" the wealth, Bill.
The NHL did like the 24% rollback but thought it should be "adjusted".
In the NHL's counter-offer the league took virtually all the concessions, increased them in magnitude and then slapped a salary cap they had previously proposed on top just for good measure. This is negotiation?????
On December 14, 2004 the NHL proposal would have ensured a maximum team payroll of $36.4 million and a minimum team payroll of $32.4 million in the first year of an agreement. The average team payroll would be $34.4 million and the average player salary would be $1.38 million. The league's cap proposal, known as the Payroll Range with Cash Recapture plan was the second time the NHL has offered it in negotiations. The salary rollbacks were adjusted to try to split the union membership.
"My hope is that the union leadership recognizes that the owners' resolve is great," said Bettman. "We only know of really one approach to meaningfully address and fix our problems." Yes Gary we get it - a salary cap and nothing but a salary cap.
So the NHL started with a salary cap, reconsidered and proposed a salary cap and then finally moved all the way to............ a salary cap. Interesting negotiation.
From that point on all was silent until Trevor Linden's abortive attempt to kick start the negotiation process which appears to have ended in failure.
You be the judge - who has been proactive and who has been totally reactive.
As I said I have now concluded that it was the plan all along to burn this season and looking back at the history of the dispute I cannot believe I was so blind not to have seen it earlier.
Only one side seems interested in negotiating and it is not the NHL owners.