Biggest reason for this prolonged lockout - Goodenow "we will not play under a cap"

[SENSible1*]

I can't see how not making any legitimate offer until January can be perceived as "bargaining in good faith".

The NHL has tried, on numerous occassions, to get the players to start the negotiation process. Since the NHL has determined that cost certainty will be part of their operatitions when they re-open for business, they have been bargaining in good faith in attempting to get the players to discuss the crucial question of negotiating a definition of hockey revenues.

The NHL will make one offer and then cancell the entire season ??? Why not make that same offer in August or September ???

No, they will cancel the season and then put forward the CBA they intend to use if impasse is acheived. Should the players decide to negotiate based on the presented CBA, the league will gladly oblige.

Cancelling the NHL for one or more seasons will cause th edeath of some franchise IMO. People in in certain US markets will realize that they get along just fine without the NHL.

The league put plenty of money aside for just this eventuality. The markets that would struggle post-impasse with replacement players are the same ones that were already in trouble. The league views them as long term propositions and is willing to take short term losses to prop them up.

Thye owners are the ones refusing to negotiate, as they have yet to submit even one single offer that could be used to jump start talks between the two sides.

The owners won't put forward a full offer until the basic tenents of that offer are agreed upon or until they have demonstrated the lengths the players are willing to go to avoid negotiating those tenents.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

How is it, in your estimation, that a salary cap is not a legitimate offer? I believe the owners have followed the correct legalities to this point and should have a case in the future.

The problem with their offers to this points is that they were a paragraph each in length.

A legitimate CBA proposal would have to be a minimum of 50 pages.

A CBA proposal can't just be, salaries will equal 53% of "hockey revenues"

The owners have to include a million other things in a CBA, most importantly:

How will "hockey revenues" be defined.


The CBA that just expired contained 31 articles and 18 exhibits
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/index.html

Preamble
Article 1 Definitions
Article 2 Recognition
Article 3 Duration of Agreement
Article 4 Union Security and Check-Off
Article 5 Management Rights
Article 6 NHLPA Agent Certification
Article 7 No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings
Article 8 Entry Draft
Article 9 Entry Level Compensation
Article 10 Free Agency
Article 11 Salary and Awards; Standard Player's Contract
Article 12 Salary Arbitration
Article 13 Waivers and Loans of Players to Minor League Clubs; Waiver Draft
Article 14 Player Assignments
Article 15 Training Camp; Travel Expenses
Article 16 League Schedule; Playing Rosters; Reserve Lists; Practice Sessions
Article 17 Grievances, Arbitration, Impartial Arbitrator
Article 18 Commissioner Discipline
Article 19 Per Diem Allowance
Article 20 Game Tickets
Article 21 Pension Plan
Article 22 Participation in Development of Playing Rules
Article 23 Insurance Coverages
Article 24 International Hockey Games
Article 25 Endorsements; Licensing
Article 26 No Circumvention
Article 27 Releases
Article 28 Player Finish and Other Monetary Awards
Article 29 Continuing Education and Career Counseling
Article 30 NHL Constitution and Bylaws, League and Club Rules
Article 31 Miscellaneous


Exhibit 1 Standard Player's Contract
Exhibit 2 NHLPA Dues or Fee Authorization
Exhibit 3 Opt-In Form
Exhibit 4 Entry Draft Selection Modifications
Exhibit 5 Performance Bonuses
Exhibit 6 Form of Offer Sheet
Exhibit 7 Form of First Refusal Exercise Notice
Exhibit 8 Procedures Relating To Commissioner Discipline
Exhibit 9 Disability release -- Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company
Exhibit 10 Disability Release -- NHLPA
Exhibit 11 National Hockey League Players' Association Release
Exhibit 12 NHL Release
Exhibit 13 NHL Undertaking
Exhibit 14 Form of Standard Club Rules
Exhibit 15 Compensatory Draft System
Exhibit 16 Transition Rules
Exhibit 17 Pro-Rata Adjustments
Exhibit 18 Ancillary Letter Agreements

 

[SENSible1*]

The problem with their offers to this points is that they were a paragraph each in length.

A legitimate CBA proposal would have to be a minimum of 50 pages.

A CBA proposal can't just be, salaries will equal 53% of "hockey revenues"

The owners have to include a million other things in a CBA, most importantly:

How will "hockey revenues" be defined.

The owners have been attempting to negotiate this crucial point with the players for years. The NHLPA refuses to do so.

The PA will get a CBA, once the NHL has established the players intransigence on cost certainty by cancelling the season.

 

[copperandblue]

A legitimate CBA proposal would have to be a minimum of 50 pages.

How many of those 50 pages need to be changed?

This whole debate seems to hinge on a couple points. Once those points have been addressed then there may be some spin off onto some secondary items but that can't happen until the biggies have been discussed.

Bottom line, the CBA proposals - from a practical sense - can boil down to a couple paragraphs....

I am sure that when/if the time comes that legal avenues need to be explored, all the "i's" will be dotted and the "t's crossed" and that 50+ section document will be submitted with very few but very significant changes.

 

[fan mao rong]

Well I believe an entire CBA need not be put forth in a Collective Bargaining situation because only mandatory subjects of bargaining need be negotiated (wages, terms, and conditions-basically). One would think alot of the CBA would be permissive subjects of bargaining which do not have to be negotiated. If the owners put forth the mandatory subjects and bargained them and can obtain impasse they can implement them plus any permissive subjects they choose. I found something which gives the run down on good faith bargaining as presented by Duke University which explains that plus many of the rules of collective bargaining. It covers the MLB strike and it's resolution including the NLRB's ruling. Some might find it interesting. It's not a propaganda piece.Lecture # 4 If someone would like they could put it up top for a reference.

 

[SENSible1*]

Well I believe an entire CBA need not be put forth in a Collective Bargaining situation because only mandatory subjects of bargaining need be negotiated (wages, terms, and conditions-basically). One would think alot of the CBA would be permissive subjects of bargaining which do not have to be negotiated. If the owners put forth the mandatory subjects and bargained them and can obtain impasse they can implement them plus any permissive subjects they choose. I found something which gives the run down on good faith bargaining as presented by Duke University which explains that plus many of the rules of collective bargaining. It covers the MLB strike and it's resolution including the NLRB's ruling. Some might find it interesting. It's not a propaganda piece.Lecture # 4 If someone would like they could put it up top for a reference.

Interesting read.

 

[tantalum]

How many of those 50 pages need to be changed?

This whole debate seems to hinge on a couple points. Once those points have been addressed then there may be some spin off onto some secondary items but that can't happen until the biggies have been discussed.

Bottom line, the CBA proposals - from a practical sense - can boil down to a couple paragraphs....

I am sure that when/if the time comes that legal avenues need to be explored, all the "i's" will be dotted and the "t's crossed" and that 50+ section document will be submitted with very few but very significant changes.

Most of what the CBA covers doesn't need ot be discussed. Such as callups, waivers, trades, payment during injury etc... And if they do they can be hammered out over lunch.

It's not only that but when the NHL made those proposals does everyone forget that they spent 2 or 3 full days with the union going over those proposals and the leagues concerns. Seems to me that it wouldn't take 2 or 3 days to go over six 100 word proposals (according to Linden). The substance was discussed during those days though obviously the union wants to forget those few days of explanation. Not surprising given they want to forget about all their talk 18-24 months ago about the revenues not being reported correctly...they darned near tied themselves to revenue before the war even began.

You can bet the unions proposal wasn't much more than 100 words either.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You can bet the unions proposal wasn't much more than 100 words either.

The union proposal was 100+ pages.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Well I believe an entire CBA need not be put forth in a Collective Bargaining situation because only mandatory subjects of bargaining need be negotiated (wages, terms, and conditions-basically). One would think alot of the CBA would be permissive subjects of bargaining which do not have to be negotiated.

It was a good link, thank you. I think this element - mandatory vs. permissive - is pretty much irrelevant in the hockey dispute. That was, it seems to me, the most important lesson of the baseball decision. Every important issue between the parties are mandatory issues. They all impact directly on wages. "We don't need to negotiate that to impasse," said MLB. "because whether we collude on a salary cap is not a mandatory subject for bargaining."

Not only did baseball lose this decision, they lost it big time in the Court of Appeal. I think it would be difficult for the NLRB to ignore that precedent.

The other really interesting point about impasse from the link: If the NHL is going to try to claim they cannot afford to pay the existing salaries, they will have to be willing to open up the real books. URO documents certified by Arthur Levitt won't cut it. If hockey is like baseball, the owners will not claim an inability to pay beyond a certain percentage of "designated" revenues. In baseball the owners were trying to get subjects like free agency declared permissive because they were not prepared to claim an inability to pay.

I think that makes it pretty difficult to win any help from the NLRB because it undercuts their position if they do not have a good reason to demand a salary cap in the negotiations. "It is essential that we tie salaries to revenues because, well, just because..."

I don't think impasse, implementation, strike and strikebreakers is a very reasonable possibility. So what is the strategy? I keep thinking that the owners surely have this thing planned out and have some idea as to how they will get what it is that they want. There must be some method to the madness. Then I remember we are dealing with Gary Bettman. Everything else he's touched has turned to crap, so why not this, too?

If anyone has a good idea as to how the NHL plans to get from here to what they want, I'd sure like to hear it.

Tom

 

[tantalum]

The union proposal was 100+ pages.

With really itty bitty writing I'm told as well

IF it was 100 pages which I've never ever seen any mention to you can bet that about 100 words were different than the current CBA. Like the owners proposals. Both positions are really just an amendment of an agreement in which the bulk will be completely the same.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Goodenow unwisely escalated the CBA dispute, prolonged the lockout and painted himself into a corner by being so rigid in his intial stance on the current CBA negotiations. He committed the 1st and seemingly insurmountable error in negotiations by taking a stand and not leaving any middle ground for a possible compromise. Bettman on the other hand has always said he wants to negotiate a fair settlement that involves cost certainty and a partnership with players including honoring guaranteed contracts and the sharing of revenues. I would say Bettman was the wiser of the two in that he at least said he is willng to negotiate, listen to offers-ideas that fit into the parameters set out by the owners who he represents. Goodenow now has nowhere to go but to concede and break his promise. Result, an impasse that will cost NHL fans/players at least one full season of hockey and likely longer plus his players will lose billions in the future. It will also cost the NHL years to recover it's corporate sponsors and ticket buying fans who I really believe will rebel in much higher numbers than baseball fans did after 94. Can any of you think of a way for Goodenow to overcome his initial statement without losing face? I can't - so he won't. The sooner we get to the impasse stage the better as far as I am concerned.

Bling pretty much summed it up for me. You can say the exact same things about Bettman.

And I wouldn't be so confident that the league gets what they want at impasse. First, US labor court has generally sided with labor in the past, and since Canada is more liberal(and thus more favorable to organized labor) than the US, I'd be willing to bet thats the case there too. Second, I don't think it'd be too hard to prove the league has always planned on going to impasse. That definitely hurts their case. Third, the players have been the ones who have moved off their ideal solution the most, while the league has not budged at all.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

With really itty bitty writing I'm told as well

IF it was 100 pages which I've never ever seen any mention to you can bet that about 100 words were different than the current CBA. Like the owners proposals. Both positions are really just an amendment of an agreement in which the bulk will be completely the same.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2004/11/23/727468.html

"All we've heard from Gary is this stance: 'Salary cap, salary cap, salary cap.' We've given them well-thought-out proposals and he's not willing to negotiate. What we've gotten back is just ridiculous. We presented a proposal with hundreds of pages of fine details. What we got back is six concepts and the longest one may have been 230 words and some were 30 words."

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Most of what the CBA covers doesn't need ot be discussed. Such as callups, waivers, trades, payment during injury etc... And if they do they can be hammered out over lunch.

I agree that much of the CBA is boilerplate, but the owners are asking for fundamental change, and lots of it would have to change if they did get what they want. But Brooks does have a copy of the NHL memo and the owners want to talk about lots of things:

Article 5 - Management Rights. The League believes the growth of revenues to be shared by the players will be enhanced by the NHLPA granting the League greater flexibility in the operation of the business in various operational, financial and marketing areas.

Article 11 - Standard Player's Contract. We propose to revise and simplify the SPC by moving many of its provisions to the CBA [and] revising provisions inconsistent with the goals of the new economic system.

We will be raising for discussion issues affecting numerous CBA and SPC [Standard Player Contract] provisions including salary guarantees and buy-outs other than for injury...

Article 13 - Waivers and Loans. We propose to simplify and update this provision and to grant greater flexibility to the Clubs and the League.

Article 16 - League Schedule. We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal, and to clarify language concerning injured reserve.

Article 18 - Commissioner Discipline. We propose to increase the Commissioner's fining authority and to improve current procedures.

Article 23 - Insurance Coverages. We believe it will be in our joint interests to look for ways to . . . bring the League's and the Clubs' costs more in line with those incurred on behalf of other categories of League and Club employees . . .

Article 25 - Endorsements, Licensing, Etc. "We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal.

Article 30 [NHL Constitution and Bylaws, League and Club Rules] "We propose to modify those provisions which will be covered by a broader, more inclusive management rights proposal.

Those aren't small things. All of them will be contentious and we don't know what the NHL wants on any of these things. As far as we know, neither does the NHLPA.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

.......

No offence but Guerin has already proven himself as uninformed on some issues so I am not sure quoting him is real concrete proof.

Sorta like McCabe's - we are willing to sit forthe rest of our lives

or Modano's - that amount would feed my dog

or any one of the - "I was quoted outta context" statement retractions....

Let's hear Goodenow or his sidekick come out with that before putting any weight behind it.

 

[copperandblue]

Those aren't small things. All of them will be contentious and we don't know what the NHL wants on any of these things. As far as we know, neither does the NHLPA.

Tom

Both sides have already said at one point or another that the holdup is the Cap vs no Cap issue and that they both expect everything else to be somewhat of a quick resolve once they get beyond that?

Not dismissing that idea that time can be lost in the details but in general it sounded like they are atleast reading the same book with this other stuff - if not on the same page.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

No offence but Guerin has already proven himself as uninformed on some issues so I am not sure quoting him is real concrete proof.

Let's hear Goodenow or his sidekick come out with that before putting any weight behind it.

Bill Guerin is vice-president of the NHLPA executive comittee, he knows what he's speaking about. Only Linden as a player would rank above Guerin.

 

[Dr Love]

Bill Guerin is vice-president of the NHLPA executive comittee, he knows what he's speaking about. Only Linden as a player would rank above Guerin.

Why does it not suprize me that Bill Guerin, professional money grubber, is the VP of the NHLPA?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

No offence but Guerin has already proven himself as uninformed on some issues so I am not sure quoting him is real concrete proof.

Guerin is a vice president of the NHLPA and on the negotiating committee. This means he has seen every piece of paper generated on the dispute and he has attended every meeting and negotiating session. He speaks for the organization. To call him uninformed is quite the insult.

Let's hear Goodenow or his sidekick come out with that before putting any weight behind it.

Like you would put any weight on it anyway. If the information isn't part of an officially sanctioned Bettman media minute, it's garbage isn't it?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Both sides have already said at one point or another that the holdup is the Cap vs no Cap issue and that they both expect everything else to be somewhat of a quick resolve once they get beyond that?

Goodenow has said that the dispute can be settled quickly once the owners get off the salary cap. He has not suggested that all of the other issues can be quickly resolved once the players accept a salary cap. He has stated flatly that the players aren't accepting the salary cap.

At least some of these other issues are being raised because teams will need greater flexibility in a number of areas if the system legislates inflexibility around money. Bettman has said that once the core issue is accepted by the Union, the rest will not take months to tie up. It can be done expeditiously, he says.

That's not the point. The point is that the least the owners can do is table an A-Z CBA. They can pick one of their "concepts", fill in the details, and table it. Until they do, they are not negotiating anything.

Why haven't they done it? They can't get to impasse until they do. What is the point of waiting?

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

Guerin is a vice president of the NHLPA and on the negotiating committee. This means he has seen every piece of paper generated on the dispute and he has attended every meeting and negotiating session. He speaks for the organization. To call him uninformed is quite the insult.
Tom

Seen every piece of paper? Likely.
Understood every piece of paper? Very doubtful.
Let's be honest here fellas. The NHL is made up of the world's greatest hockey players, not the world's greatest minds. For good or bad these guy are being led around by their union bosses and agents.

 

[BLONG7]

Bill Guerin is vice-president of the NHLPA executive comittee, he knows what he's speaking about. Only Linden as a player would rank above Guerin.

The Bill Guerin's of the league are exactly what is wrong with the whole CBA picture! Big money allows guys like him and Pronger to shoot off whenever they want, meanwhile dissing the guy who makes 500K for speaking out! 9Million for Bill Guerin...what a joke...he and his agent have wanted MORE money everywhere they have went, and whaen the new Dallas owner bit... well...therein lies the problem.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The Bill Guerin's of the league are exactly what is wrong with the whole CBA picture! Big money allows guys like him and Pronger to shoot off whenever they want, meanwhile dissing the guy who makes 500K for speaking out! 9Million for Bill Guerin...what a joke...he and his agent have wanted MORE money everywhere they have went, and whaen the new Dallas owner bit... well...therein lies the problem.

So is the problem that Guerin wanted more money or that Hicks gave it to him?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Seen every piece of paper? Likely.
Understood every piece of paper? Very doubtful.
Let's be honest here fellas. The NHL is made up of the world's greatest hockey players, not the world's greatest minds. For good or bad these guy are being led around by their union bosses and agents.

Give me a break. Guerin spent a couple of years at Boston College. Trevor Linden is extremely smart and he was the Canuck player rep in 1994. The players understand exactly what is going on. They pay Goodenow and their agents to provide advice. The idea that they are being led around is ridiculous. They know exactly what is at stake.

The fans are being led around by the Gary Bettman travelling medicine man and media manipulation circus. Snake oil, $1.50.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

Guerin is a vice president of the NHLPA and on the negotiating committee. This means he has seen every piece of paper generated on the dispute and he has attended every meeting and negotiating session. He speaks for the organization. To call him uninformed is quite the insult.

You assume he sees every piece of paper, maybe he does, maybe he sees the paper but can't actually READ the paper.

I know he is the vice president of the PA, I also know that he has been misinformed in the past.

Was he correct when he said that the league wanted to move towards ungauranteed contracts?

Whatever it is that he is seeing, it is being clouded by a) too many concussions b) people of influence

Like you would put any weight on it anyway. If the information isn't part of an officially sanctioned Bettman media minute, it's garbage isn't it?

Tom

Why wouldn't I put weight behind it.

My position on most of this stuff is pretty clear but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to filter through a good portion of the BS.

When charges are made, the other side is either quick to rebut them, they let it pass or they spin into another issue. At the end of the day you get a pretty good idea of who is telling the truth.

Moreso than people passing off their opinions as fact and trying to pass it off as evidence to an argument....

 

[copperandblue]

So is the problem that Guerin wanted more money or that Hicks gave it to him?

I vote Hicks