nomorekids
The original, baby
puck you said:I think you should show me the major concessions the PA has made.
oh, don't forget, mike modano was willing to trim 25,000 a year off his contract
puck you said:I think you should show me the major concessions the PA has made.
nomorekids said:oh, don't forget, mike modano was willing to trim 25,000 a year off his contract
But what will the NHLPA gain next year that it wouldn't obtain by striking a capped deal right now?
Not a heck of a lot.
xerburt said:Going back to the article, the following excerpt is probably the most important thing to note in the entire article:
If the owners are as resilient as they make themselves out to be, there really is no benefit for the NHLPA to hold out to the end with their current stance. In fact, if they do, they will in all likelihood lose out.
puck you said:I think you should show me the major concessions the PA has made.
nomorekids said:oh, don't forget, mike modano was willing to trim 25,000 a year off his contract
DementedReality said:again, if you havent been paying attention you wouldnt need to ask.
the players have offered and are willing to negotiate the #'s:
- roll back in salaries
- luxury tax
- rookie cap and bonus reductions
- negotiate changes to arbitration process and rules
DementedReality said:mike modano was willing to trim $350,000 or more per year. Thats not chump change.
DementedReality said:again, if you havent been paying attention you wouldnt need to ask.
the players have offered and are willing to negotiate the #'s:
- roll back in salaries
- luxury tax
- rookie cap and bonus reductions
- negotiate changes to arbitration process and rules
Seems to me those are considerable concessions to what everyone claims is "status quo". The total result is a over 100m in concessions. Even if you believe the Levvitt Report, the players have contributed to fixing half the leagues problems, surely the owners can identify how to fix the other half without imposing a work stoppage that is killing the sport.
But you already knew this, you just prefered to play stupid.
dr
puck you said:A 5% roll back would be a significant concession if it was tied to a meaningful luxury tax, but the luxury tax was a joke. It was 40 - 50 million, with about 50 cents per dollar on overages. It was a PR offer, they made an offer for the sake of making one.
I'm not playing stupid, I just don't consider a PR offer a subtiansial one.
dawgbone said:Actually, you are flattering the PA's numbers...
it was 20% on $50 mil, and 30% on $60mil...
vanlady said:OK let's review the basics of negotiation, first one side makes an offer, the other side counters closer to their position, then the other side counter offers. Negotiation does not mean one side sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "we want a cap". That sound like my 3 year old outside the ice cream store.
vanlady said:OK let's review the basics of negotiation, first one side makes an offer, the other side counters closer to their position, then the other side counter offers. Negotiation does not mean one side sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "we want a cap". That sound like my 3 year old outside the ice cream store.