2 replies to this topic

[DropThePuck]

In July of this year, we presented the Union six different concepts for new economic systems, each of which would have been effective in addressing the economic problems confronting the League and its teams, and each of which would have guaranteed the players more than 50% of the League's revenues and maintained an average player salary in excess of $1.3 million (U.S.).

<LINK> (Scroll down to the John from Ridley Park, PA question)

(1) Performance-Based Salary System
(2) Player Partnership Payroll Plan
(3) Payroll Range with Cash Recapture
(4) Hard Individual Team Salary Cap
(5) Team Salary Groups
(6) Centralized Negotiation of Contracts

The players' union would rather reject all of these, and lose one of hockey's earliest pledges ... "for the love of the game" ??!

And if you scroll down a little more, Daly writes about the luxury tax objections.

[Arse McKnob]

I really like 1 and 6.

[hockey2k]

I've been wondering what the six proposals were!

If the NHLPA wants a "free market system" like they say they do, they should go with #1. Performance based salaries are what you get in a free market.

#5 sounds like the pay structure I used to have when I had a Union job. We had a pay scale with certain "steps" designated. An entry level job put you on the first step, if you had more experience you may start on step 4 or 5. You could go up a step based on tenure, and the payscale was linked to your job title. It wasn't a very motivating system though, since there was no reward for good performance.