Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Does This CBA Solution Work?

from Adam Proteau of The Hockey News, 

Duration Of Agreement: Seven years.

1. Players’ Hockey-Related Revenue split drops one percentage point in each season of the CBA.  
Rather than demanding drastic and immediate clawbacks that make the players’ association bristle, the NHL could allow players to slowly ease into a 50/50 split over the life of the labor deal. The bite of the reduction will sting NHLers less significantly, while still getting the owners their obsessed-over halfsies. 

2. Dollar-For-Dollar Luxury Tax implemented, with all funds directed to improving revenue-sharing for small-market teams. 
In return for giving up more of the HRR pie, players should receive some acknowledgement from owners they want to be part of the long-term solution to ensure nobody has to endure this lockout disgrace ever again. The way to do that is the way NHLPA executive director Don Fehr suggested in the union’s first CBA proposal: increased revenue sharing via a luxury tax for big-market teams that wish to exceed the cap.


Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink


DocF's avatar

This makes sense and that is why in the current world of NHL unreality, it will not happen.  The Evil Garden Gnome and his minions (owners in Boston, Philly, etc) did not invent it, so it does not exist.

Bettman and his minions do not seem to realize that the course they are on can destroy the NHL.  A two season or longer lockout is not beyond possibility.

Players need to start going to court to be released from NHL contracts as they are void account anti-labor action on the part of the league.  That might make the owners more willing to negotiate instead of dictate.

Posted by DocF from Now: Lynn Haven, FL; was Reidsville, NC on 09/27/12 at 12:36 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

The luxury tax would have to not just allow clubs to exceed the cap, but it would have to allow the players’ share to exceed whatever the stated, agreed upon percentage is, wouldn’t it?

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 09/27/12 at 01:24 PM ET


The luxury tax would have to not just allow clubs to exceed the cap, but it would have to allow the players’ share to exceed whatever the stated, agreed upon percentage is, wouldn’t it?

In theory, if you set the ceiling and floor farther apart the teams that are spending over the new cap would be counterbalanced by the teams who chose to spend under the old floor.

Even still, there would need to be some form of escrow provisions left in the new deal just in case.

As far as the articles suggestions, there are a ton of player givebacks there.  Contracts to 7 years, lowering the cap to 50-50, a ban on all NTC/NMCs, forcing the NHL to play in the Olympics, tougher punitive measures on players, etc.

That’s a lot of stuff.  Yes, a dollar for dollar luxury tax would address some of that, but does anybody really think many teams would actually go that far over a soft cap?  We’re talking about maybe five teams tops with big enough markets to carry 80 million dollars in salary… and they’d generate what, 40 or 50 mil a year in RS money?

The only way I see that working is if the cap ceiling was lowered enough to bring 8-10 teams into a possible Tax-paying bracket.  Otherwise the NHLPA would be better off leaving RS as it was with the NHL throwing in 150 mil a year.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/27/12 at 04:12 PM ET

Hockeytown Wax's avatar

Luxury Tax for teams that go over the cap ??

When was the last time you saw a GM go $2 mil. or $5 mil. over the cap on purpose ??  Maybe $150K because some bonuses kicked in at the end of the season but that doesn’t go far when even teams that make the playoffs (ie san jose sharks) lose $12 mil. last season (forbes estimate).  It’s useless but I suppose its there to keep the “rich teams” from violating the cap without concequences.

Manditory visors is not something that needs to be in a CBA much like Abortion and Gay Marriage doesn’t belong in governmental politics.

Its a personal matter to be decided by the individual player.  If they insist on the visor clause then they should go deeper and and ban all hard plastics from elbow pads and sholder pads as well.  Just this one point could take a month or more to hammer out because it involves design and manufacturing etc.

One person in Adam’s comment section mentioned Reallignment.  Why the players vote on this I’ll never know.

The team they signed a contract with isn’t moving to a different city, they’re just being switch to a different Conference or Division which, in most cases means less travel and more sleep (and for the owners, lower travel costs).

If the players get a say on reallignment then they should be able to approve or reject the seasons schedule too (ie back-to-back games, extended road trips).

Where do you draw the line in player involvement ??  The more league stuffs players worry about, the less they concentrate on actually playing the game and their performance will suffer.

Invoke the K.I.S.S. rule, sign something, and lets play hockey damnit !!

Posted by Hockeytown Wax from West Bloomfield, Mi. on 09/27/12 at 04:42 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If the players get a say on reallignment then they should be able to approve or reject the seasons schedule too (ie back-to-back games, extended road trips).

The players DO have a partial say in this. Teams are limited to how often they can play… or at least they were by the last CBA.  The NHL schedule is built within those collectively bargained parameters.  This is why you don’t ever see back-to-back-to-back games.

I agree that the players shouldn’t have a say in realignment though. I don’t believe the owners are going to create a bad travel setup and I was annoyed when the NHLPA rejected the realignment plan in January in what seemed to me to be a bargaining ploy more than it was a concern over actual travel.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/27/12 at 04:49 PM ET

John's avatar

This is a great idea, and it would work, but the owners won’t agree to it at this point.  And that is the saddest part.  The CBA negotiations aren’t going to give us the best economic structure for the NHL, they aren’t going to guarantee that we don’t see another lockout anytime soon, and they aren’t going to make the game more stable and competitive.

They are going to end up at whatever point the owners are comfortable saying “uncle” no matter how much time it takes.  And that is too bad, because that is not going to help the league at all and at the end of this CBA we are just going to be in another lockout.

*#$%@& it.  The board of governors for the Stanley Cup should start making plans for a challenge tournament this year because the NHL isn’t going to be competing for it.

Posted by John from Pittsburgh, PA (Wings fan for life!) on 09/28/12 at 03:59 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com