Goodenow's
response
FEB. 14, 2005:
Both sides do an amazing about-face with time dwindling down to
save the season. For the first time, the league takes linkage off
the table and offers a $40 million US salary cap with no link to
revenue. The league's offer also includes a 50-per-cent luxury tax
on those teams with payrolls from $34-40 million.
For their part, the NHLPA counters with a proposal that includes
a $52 million team-by-team salary cap. The union's offer also contained
provisions that allow teams to exceed this cap by as much as 10
per cent three times in a six-year period, with a luxury tax incorporated.
The NHLPA's luxury tax rates were 25 per cent on $40-44 million;
50 per cent on $44-48 million; 75 per cent on $48-52 million and
150 per cent on $52-$57.2 million.
The NHL rejected the union's offer.
FEB. 9, 2005:
The NHL uses the union's Dec. 9 offer as a starting point in making
a new proposal.
Under the league's plan, the new collective bargaining agreement
would begin with the NHLPA's Dec. 9 proposal with a 24 per cent
salary rollback and luxury tax. It would later evolve into the league's
Feb. 2 proposal with a salary cap should the NHL believe the union's
model no longer functioned.
Four so-called "triggers" would have decided when the collective
agreement would switch from the players' proposal to the league's.
- If the league pays out more than 55 per cent of its revenues
on salaries
- Should any three teams have a payroll exceeding $42 million
US
- If the average team compensation surpasses $36.5 million US
- Should the average payroll of the three highest-spending clubs
be more than 33 per cent higher than the average of the three
lowest-spending teams
The NHLPA rejected the offer.
"The trigger points are just really reflections of their salary
cap proposals," said Goodenow.
"Even after our 24-per cent rollback and before clubs would sign
any new players, we forecast over three teams would be over the
$42-million level. So just at first blush, a trigger would be met,"
Goodenow added.
FEB 2, 2005:
The NHLPA rejected the league's Jan. 27 proposal because it still
contained a salary cap.
In turning down the offer, NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said
the league's "multi-layered salary cap proposals were not the basis
for an agreement."
JAN. 27, 2005:
The two sides meet in New York for four hours with the NHL tabling
another proposal with a system that included a salary cap range
of $32-42 million US limited to each team.
The league also put forth a proposal capping individual player
salaries at $6 million a year, putting at least 36 NHLers in line
for a pay decrease.
DEC. 14, 2004:
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman called the 24-per-cent rollback "significant,"
but rejected the union's proposal, saying it was "dramatic in its
immediate, short-term impact, but fatally flawed as a system going
forward."
The NHL countered with a graduated salary-range system where players
would see their pay slashed depending on how much they earn. Players
making less than $800,000 US would not take a pay cut, while those
earning $5 million or more would take a 35-per-cent hit. According
to the NHL, the proposal translated into 731 players (91.8 per cent)
being at or below the union's proposed 24 per cent.
The NHL also called for elimination of salary arbitration.
Goodenow said "the league took what they liked from our proposal,
made major changes and slapped a salary cap on top of it" in turning
down the NHL's counter-proposal
DEC. 9, 2004:
After three months of silence, the NHLPA and NHL owners met in Toronto,
with the union laying out a proposal for a new collective bargaining
agreement that included a 24-per-cent rollback on player salaries.
The NHLPA estimated this would save the league $528 million over
three years and $1 billion over six years. The NHL turned down the
union's offer five days later.
