(Brad Penner-US PRESSWIRE)
With a new CBA looking like a pipe dream this side of Christmas NHL fans have grown tired of debating the merits of the NHLPA and NHL’s recent proposals.
While both sides of the argument have merit, the two sides remain at odds on numerous issues, including how to determine hockey related revenue and whether or not the owners should “make whole” on the players current contracts.
Whenever two entities as powerful as the NHL and NHLPA are negotiating a deal where hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake there are bound to be disagreements, but I think I have found ten things that should be included in any new CBA.
Here is my top ten.
1. A five year limit on player contracts.
Owners have killed themselves with long-term deals that vary between eight and 14- years in length. A move towards a more reasonable five-year term would protect the owners from making huge errors in judgement and take away the concern of front-loading contracts in order to make them fit into the cap.
2. Ability to trade a portion of player salary.
Since the last CBA was approved there has been a steady decline of “big deals” made at the deadline. At the heart of the issue is the inability for teams to absorb player contracts, making it all but impossible to make significant change. Allowing NHL teams to trade a portion of a players salary in order to consummate a deal makes sense on so many levels, so why not allow it?
3. No more guaranteed contracts.
The NHLPA would fight hard against this, but guaranteed contracts are killing a number of teams that are saddled with enormous contracts that they cannot get out from. The NFL allows for heavy signing bonuses in return for not having guaranteed contracts, the NHL should look at this concept.
4. No more burying contracts in the AHL or any other professional leagues
The NHL’s latest proposal includes a rule that would see all contracts over $105,000 count against the cap. Essentially this would take away the advantage that some NHL clubs have where they can bury a players contract in the minors in order to clear cap space for their NHL roster. This is an unfair advantage for the “haves” and should be abolished.
5. A 50-50 split of all hockey related revenue.
Both sides seem agreeable to a 50-50 split of HRR, and while it will take some trust on both sides to determine what that number (pie from which HRR will be drawn) is, the percentages look fair for both sides.
6. Abolish no-trade clauses.
The no-trade clause is completely in the players favor. If a team wants to trade a player that has a no-trade clause the player has the option of digging his heels in and saying “no”. On the flip-side, if a player with a NTC wants to be traded he can demand one from his team AND insist on being moved to a team of his choice, or a diluted list of teams that he is willing to be moved to.
Essentially the owners are in a no-win battle here, so the best thing to do is to do away with no-trade clauses all together.
7. A one-time amnesty clause for all teams.
With the salary cap expected to be lowered over the term of the next CBA several teams may find themselves in big trouble trying to stay under the cap. The NHL should allow every team a one-time amnesty on one contract, allowing them to buy a player out at full value of his contract with no consequence. The player would then become a unrestricted free agent, allowing them to sign on with the highest bidder for his services or retire.
8. Increased fines for players.
While increased suspensions looks to be slimming down dangerous infractions the fines levied upon the players are still a joke. Fines should be based on a percentage of a players earnings so they hurt each player equally. The percentage a player can be fined should be linked to the severity of the infraction to a maximum of say 5 percent. Under the current CBA the maximum fine a player can incur is $2500.00.
9. There should be a deadline for a new CBA.
Enough with the last second negotiations when the CBA is about to expire. Any future CBA’s should be negotiated and signed six months in advance of the CBA expiring. This would force the NHL and NHLPA to sit down and hammer out a deal much quicker and avoid any future lockouts and strikes. If the two sides do not have one in place both the NHLPA and NHL should be fined heavily!
10. No more salary floor.
The current CBA has a “ salary floor” of $54.2 million. While an argument can be made that every team has a duty to spend at a reasonable level I feel each team should be able to spend as they please, and if that means they want to cut costs by employing players on the cheap, so be it.
Disagree with my list? Got an idea of your own? Feel free to use the comment box and let your opinions be known!
have a one time buy out of all these bad contracts..make it that a team can sign one life time contract for a guy who was drafted by that team or has been there for over 7 years..move phoenix and florida to quebec city and markham or seattle..reallign the teams to save on travel…the owners should have the gag order removed so people can find out the truth on which teams are responsible for these lockouts..fire bettman and bring in someone new..this guy is way to hated and arrogant to even relize he is the problem..
have a one time buy out of all these bad contracts..make it that a team can sign one life time contract for a guy who was drafted by that team or has been there for over 7 years..move phoenix and florida to quebec city and markham or seattle..reallign the teams to save on travel…the owners should have the gag order removed so people can find out the truth on which teams are responsible for these lockouts..fire bettman and bring in someone new..this guy is way to hated and arrogant to even relize he is the problem..
So basically, do everything possible to drive players to the NHL?
Aside from the fact that the NHLPA would never agree to a CBA with these 10 “rules”, it would take away any security the NHL players currently enjoy(ed). They’d have no reason to stay.
Hi Trevor, I think you mean “drive the players AWAY from the NHL”, but I get your point. I don’t expect everyone to agree with this list, in fact, I hope they don’t. Simply putting my two cents in. What do you feel is fair? What would your list look like?
I did, thanks for understanding the meaning. I don’t mean to sound like you list is completely off-base. It’d actually be a lot easier to add what I’d change from your list, actually.
“1. A five year limit on player contracts.”
I think this, in a vacuum, is very reasonable. If the NHL were to institute this, and not touch the entry level contract length and UFA eligibility, it’d definitely work. If you combine all three of those items, you’ve got players being forced to sign their third contract as a RFA, reducing their earning potential at that time and reducing the time spent as a UFA.
“3. No more guaranteed contracts.”
Depending on the implementation, this could work… but I can’t see the players going for it. They want the security of knowing that when they sign for $X, they’ll get $X as has been made clear when the issue of a salary rollback has been mentioned.
“6. Abolish no-trade clauses.”
I don’t like this idea, but wouldn’t mind seeing some regulations get put in place. It’s not right that so many players get NTCs as extra incentive to sign, but it also wouldn’t be right to deny guys like Crosby or Ovechkin the opportunity to say “I want to stay here, give me a NTC”.
“10. No more salary floor.”
I feel like removing the salary cap floor would result in a lot of lowball offers coming into play, as teams would have no incentive to “bid high” aside from bidding wars. However, I don’t particularly care for the current salary cap system. I understand that a percentage-based system would result in a growing gap as revenues rise, but it may be the best way to approach the range problem.
I agree they should get rid of the salary floor. I understand they don’t want teams pocketing the revenue sharing money they get, but there is only one winner at the end of the year, and everyone else is a certain degree away from that. Some teams are close, some teams are in rebuilding mode, but that doesn’t mean they should all be in the same range payroll wise. A rebuilding team should not be forced to overpay players just to make the floor.
A requirement for a CBA to be in place well before the old one expires is an excellent idea, but the comment, “If the two sides do not have one in place both the NHLPA and NHL should be fined heavily!” is perplexing.
Who gets the fines?
A better idea. If they don’t get the contract in place on time, it goes to mediation. They are adults (at least legally!). If they think they are in the right, then the mediator would agree. They won’t get everything but the deal they get will be close. And, the money they don’t get in the deal will be made up by the money they don’t lose in the potential lockout/strike. Meanwhile the hundreds of persons who work in hockey related and game day related businesses, the true victims in this nonsense, will not be penalized by misguided actions of the owner/players.
I agree DD— and mediation may be the key to getting a new CBA signed.
In terms of fines, the owners could be fined say $10,000,000 a piece and players would have to pony up a percentage of their salaries. That ought to be enough to keep them working on a new deal.
That said, I like Bruce’s idea of allowing for a one-year extension should a deal not be in place six-months before it expires. And I like your idea of having a mediator.
Cheers!
Excellent. I agree!
Hey Mark, I’d like to offer an addition to number 9. How about – If no new CBA is signed off on within 6 months of the deadline then the current CBA is extended for 1 more year. This way the financial lives of thousands (this blogger included) would not be hurt by the egos of so few.
Fair enough. I, like many fans, just find it stupid that the two sides get going on a new agreement so late. This league can ill afford to continue to risk lockouts and strikes. The deals must get done in a timely manner and having a rule with penalties is one way to promote a speedy deal is made. Bettman told the NHLPA that the owners were not willing to play another second under the old CBA 13 months ago. Did the NHLPA think they’d change their mind?
Fair enough. I, like many fans, just find it stupid that the two sides get going on a new agreement so late. This league can ill afford to continue to risk lockouts and strikes. The deals must get done in a timely manner and having a rule with penalties is one way to promote a speedy deal is made. Bettman told the NHLPA that the owners were not willing to play another second under the old CBA 13 months ago. Did the NHLPA think they’d change their mind?
So because the owners hinted at a lockout a year ago, the players should have conceded everything immediately? Mark…don’t be stupid.
Please do us all a favor and write about something your poor brain can handle, like the UFC. Or maybe we can just find you some nice coloring books…
Shouldn’t you be playing in traffic? Or better yet, following that storm?