Bettman said it was clear player proposal had been put together with thought and will take time to evaluate... #NHL #CBA

so it will take a month for the NHL to come back with their counter proposal..........

*bangs head off of desk***............twice........

to be clear I added raise ticket prices for teams with a waiting list who are getting revenue sharing. that was the point. The Sabres were keeping prices low, had a waiting list, AND were getting rev sharing. make sense?
- Eklund

have you ever been to buffalo? there is not alot of money floating around here. ticket prices have almost doubled for us since last lockout. raise ticket prices and you not only lose the waiting list but many of the season ticket holders.

No reason that couldn't happen again. In fact, if the loonie drops to something more like $1.20CN = $1US, at least two teams in Canada not only become eligible for revenue sharing funds, they potentially start needing revenue sharing funds to be able to spend to the midpoint of the salary cap range.
- Irish Blues

12 years ago, the Canadian dollar was at about 60 cents US.

It's amazing how short-sighted some people can be.

Of course, I'm guessing most of these kids were collecting allowances from their parents 10 years ago, so it wasn't really on their radar.

I was wondering how long it would take some jackass to say that.....longer than I thought.
- Phenom

You have Buffalo, so it needs a 2nd....

The thing that annoys me about the greedy, selfish owners is that even in the smaller market cities, they are offering huge contracts to players with massive bonuses that don't count towards their cap, and yet they still complain about how they aren't making money, or even losing money each year.

The thing that annoys me about the greedy, selfish owners is that even in the smaller market cities, they are offering huge contracts to players with massive bonuses that don't count towards their cap, and yet they still complain about how they aren't making money, or even losing money each year.
- OilersFan1985

Because if they don't do that they can't compete with the big market teams that do, losing money when their team goes 0-82 in the season and no one wants to watch them

the fans want the owner's to be competitive, that means spending

The thing that annoys me about the greedy, selfish owners is that even in the smaller market cities, they are offering huge contracts to players with massive bonuses that don't count towards their cap, and yet they still complain about how they aren't making money, or even losing money each year.
- OilersFan1985

Just out of curiosity, which contracts contain "massive bonuses that don't count towards their cap?"

No to a luxury tax. The NBA had (has?) one and all that means is the league is dominated by three teams because they can spend the most.
- martok2309

The only fans that seem to agree with the luxury tax are Leaf fans because they know they can't compete on an even playing field

The only fans that seem to agree with the luxury tax are Leaf fans because they know they can't compete on an even playing field
- flashfire

Interesting read but I think a bit cluttered with too many ideas and proposals. Debate needs to be about the economic structure of the league and, at the very least, the PA's proposal will set out a different version of how things should work.

Some random thoughts

1 - Gary has a problem (similar to Goodenow last time) of trying to hold together a bunch of owners with very different agendas. Any real solution would have high revenue teams provide more revenue sharing - either through a luxury tax or straight revenue sharing. They don't want to so Gary will try to take it out of player salaries.

2 - If the owners stick together, this will be a long strike and will only end with the defeat of the union (interesting that both Syd and OV were part of the PA delegation today

3 - MLSE, as one of the big revenue franchises, may be hurt by a long strike, as their broadcast owners will lose a lot of money with no hockey to televiseSince the last loc

4 - I would combine moving one of the franchises -- Phx to Markham -- with a proposal to increase revenue sharing. This spreads out the number of "have" teams and lowers the number of "revenue receiving" teams.

5 - The PA may be playing to the richer, more moderate franchises with the luxury tax idea which at least gives them a chance to snag some top talent players for any increased revenue that gets shared.

6 - Since the last lock out Gary's salary has more thjan doubled from $3M to $8M.

The only fans that seem to agree with the luxury tax are Leaf fans because they know they can't compete on an even playing field
- flashfire

It's not a field.

It's a rink.

6 - Since the last lock out Gary's salary has more thjan doubled from $3M to $8M.
- Canada Cup

Which works out to an extra $166,666.67 per year per team.

Best money the owners have ever spent.

The rising ticket prices and escalating salaries are what caused this mess - they are not the solution.

*********************CBA UPDATE, 2:30pm ET ******************

note..I am going to keep the blog below up and add CBA news to it...for the time being..

The NHLPA sent a slew of NHLers to the NHLPA offices in Toronto today to present their counter offer and as expected it was in depth and extremely creative. Ovechkin and Crosby were among those in attendance. As a side note, I do get the impression the NHL isn't overly comfortable with all the players who are showing up at these meetings, and one source implied to me that the NHL could bring owners into these talks if this level of participation continues.

Given the history lesson learned in 2004 no one can blame the players for attending and Donald Fehr is gaining huge support among the union members for this open policy. The NHL respects the rights of the players as well and will never say anything negative about them attending. But as these negotiations continue you have to wonder if this direct player participation will as well. I alos wonder if it should when we get down to brass tacks. Too many cooks...

Of the proposal....The early news is focused around the fact the NHLPA did NOT ask to revoke the Salary Cap....which was apparently the fear of many out there. I never got the impression they would attempt such a move. As I wrote in the article below, bringing the Salary Cap back into play would be a linchpin issue to unify the owners unlike any that currently exist. Fehr is smart to let that sleeping horse be.

I will attempt to find out as much as I can about the proposal...the details of which will likely leak out today...

The proposal by the players went on for about 90 minutes longer than anyone had anticipated. The good news was the NHL's response was extremely respectful with Bettman talking of how the NHLPA took their time to put together a well-rounded offer. The NHL then said they would take the night to digest the offer and talks would resume tomorrow. ALSO very good news, because I had been told by a few sources earlier today the NHL was prepared to take a longer brake from talks if they were "insulted or put off" by the offer.

What to look for next based on history...

In the past the NHL has taken creative ideas from the NHLPA and incorporated them on the fly to their own advantage. Who can forget Goodenow proposing a salary rollback instead of a salary cap. The NHL happily took the rollback idea and kept the Cap as well. It was a huge mistake on Goodenow's part and a sign the NHLPA had lost its power when this occurred. The NHL won't be able to pull of that kind of a move at this point, but i do expect them to try and incorporate some of the concepts put forth by the NHLPA over the next several days. It is smart negotiating to allow the other side the appearance of a win by allowing a conceptual pivot as long as you can still get your agenda in the end.


*********************END OF UPDATE******************

4 - I would combine moving one of the franchises -- Phx to Markham -- with a proposal to increase revenue sharing. This spreads out the number of "have" teams and lowers the number of "revenue receiving" teams.
- Canada Cup

Incorrect. Everyone that thinks "just move _____ to ______, and you reduce the amount of revenue sharing needed" misses that critical point; all it does is reduce the burden on all the other teams who were paying in provided that the newly-relocated team lands in the top-10 in revenues - but it does nothing to reduce the amount of revenue sharing required. In fact, it may actually increase the amount needed depending on how the figures shake out.

While total league revenues increase by moving Phoenix to [insert desired location here], it forces up the cap that much more [regardless of what percentage of revenues the players get]. It also takes the team that was #15 in revenues [and was previously ineligible for revenue sharing] and makes it the #16 team [and makes it now eligible for revenue sharing]; at the same time, it puts even more pressure on every team that was already receiving revenue sharing [and already fighting to spend somewhere between the cap floor and cap midpoint] and forces them to require even more revenue sharing funds to be able to spend to the same [but now higher] points.

In short: you turn one team from recipient to contributor, turn a non-recipient into a recipient, and make it so all the other recipient teams need a little more. There's virtually no net gain in the process.

No to a luxury tax. The NBA had (has?) one and all that means is the league is dominated by three teams because they can spend the most.
- martok2309

Completely disagree. The New York Knicks spend well into the luxury tax every year and they haven't been good since the late 90s. The trick is to make the luxury tax just strong enough so that it discourages going into the tax EVERY season, but not crippling enough that if you feel really strongly about it, you can go into the tax for a couple of seasons without it destroying your franchise. Maybe have something like a 1:1 penalty the first year into the luxury tax, 1.5-1 in Year 2, 2-1 in Year 3, etc.

Well, It seems like the players really don't want a lockout.... they cut the bullpoop and made an offer that by the looks of it, should be able to be made into a new CBA. Unlike the owners who just made a proposal completely one-sided.....

Things are looking up, and it seems like we should be seeing pre-season hockey in September

Well, It seems like the players really don't want a lockout.... they cut the bullpoop and made an offer that by the looks of it, should be able to be made into a new CBA. Unlike the owners who just made a proposal completely one-sided.....

Things are looking up, and it seems like we should be seeing pre-season hockey in September
- cor99

Whoa... talk about jumping to conclusions in a hurry.

Well, It seems like the players really don't want a lockout.... they cut the bullpoop and made an offer that by the looks of it, should be able to be made into a new CBA. Unlike the owners who just made a proposal completely one-sided.....

Things are looking up, and it seems like we should be seeing pre-season hockey in September
- cor99

I would think that Negotiations 101 state that both sides lowball each other and you meet in the middle. If the owners lowball and the players shoot straight, does that mean that meeting in the middle means it will be heavily favored towards the owner's requests? If both sides have to give a little to get and the NHLPA have made a reasonable request, it may not favor the NHLPA too well.

The only fans that seem to agree with the luxury tax are Leaf fans because they know they can't compete on an even playing field
- flashfire

Didnt work for us before when there was no cap. It won't matter. We are doomed..

The NHL is run by Barack Hussein Obama......Just wants to spread the wealth around....The losers get the free stuff the rich teams stuck flipping the bill....
- tmlfan17

Or in the Leafs case, rich losers get stuck flipping the bill.

Also if someone could give their input on what i'm about to say...

The cap was set at 39M last lockout.... this helped reduce how much money was spent, and helped allow small market teams have a better chance.

The average payroll in 2003 was 45M, thus on average each teams payroll dropped atleast 6M. So around 180M in salaries were cut.

Thus the league was making more profit. Small Market teams were able to be competitive, and it kept costs low.

Flash forward to today, the cap is 70M and it seems that every small market team is losing money and can;t be competitive.

IS the cap the problem?

Whoa... talk about jumping to conclusions in a hurry.
- Pecafan Fan

Not at all. To me it just seems like this is the type of deal, that will lead to a new CBA sooner rather then later

Completely disagree. The New York Knicks spend well into the luxury tax every year and they haven't been good since the late 90s. The trick is to make the luxury tax just strong enough so that it discourages going into the tax EVERY season, but not crippling enough that if you feel really strongly about it, you can go into the tax for a couple of seasons without it destroying your franchise. Maybe have something like a 1:1 penalty the first year into the luxury tax, 1.5-1 in Year 2, 2-1 in Year 3, etc.
- hawkfan79

I think you are correct. There is enough experience with using a luxury tax as an effective curb on excessive spending. The Knicks have just discovered the consequences of not judiciously managing their player assets and salary budget. Very good chance a carefully thought out luxury tax with appropriate accelerants could be poison for some of the aggressive spending teams. A team like Chicago a few years ago or Boston or the Flyers over the next couple of years could be highly vulnerable to being raided as they attempt to retain their talented young players.