Daly coming on the Fan; Don't forget Burke tonight on CKNW

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by ColoradoHockeyFan, Mar 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    Bill Daly coming up on the Fan 590 shortly.

    And don't forget that it's Thursday, which means Brian Burke's always-entertaining show on CKNW (cknw.com) tonight (usually during the 10pm PST hour). Also archived for those who can't stay up that late.
     
  2. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    Saskin coming on next on the Fan 590.
     
  3. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    McCown and Saskin were just discussing an upcoming meeting among the NHLPA executive committee members set for next week. Has this been reported already elsewhere? Maybe I've just missed it (or somehow blocked it out).
     
  4. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    At what time is Burke supposed to be on CKNW?
     
  5. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    As I mentioned, he's usually on during the 10pm (PST) hour.

    Incidentally, did anyone else hear Saskin. Despite his initial requisite description of today's proposals as being similar to past rejected ones, did anyone else find the remainder of his comments at least somewhat non-negative? They were nowhere near the types of outright rejection comments we've heard in the past in response to proposals. Also, there were apparently some interesting new aspects to today's offers:

    The league's new offer Thursday also included, for the first time, a floor of $22.5 million per team, according to a source. That's something the union had asked for last month but could not get, although it will no doubt want that figure to be higher.

    The $37.5-million cap figure could also be moved upward depending on the growth of league revenues, a source indicated. The union had objected last month when the league's cap figure would not move over the course of the six-year deal.


    http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050317_140153_5372

    Taken together with the fact that the union did not explicitly "reject" today's proposals but claims that they will be considering them over the next week, might the above developments offer at least something that could be negotiated off of?
     
  6. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    It's been reported that the Union is meeting next week to discuss the deals the NHL proposed.
     
  7. Scoogs

    Scoogs Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    18,309
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    If in fact true... Finally something promising to hear. I think that a floor is going to be a nice checkpoint for the NHLPA in the final deal.
     
  8. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    Sorry I failed to see that part of your post (if that's possible, I guess I'm slowly becoming blind, there's no other explaination).

    Well I don't know but I get this weird (and hopefully wrong) feeling that both parties have already given up on a negotiated CBA and both sides see the court settlement as inevitable. No more name calling, just acceptance that they already are at impasse and pretty much everything else is futile. This doesn't even imply bad faith on either side, it's just a reality. How could the players accept a lower offer than the 42.5M and how could the owners offer more than the 42.5M offer is beyond me considering the present economics. I think both sides now will be much more careful in what they reveal to the media in order to not compromise their possible NLRB battle.

    As for the 22M floor, this might be a problem for the owners if they plan on using replacement players under such a CBA. That would mean they have to pay at a minimum 22M in payroll for their replacement squad, and considering they will have to significantly reduce the ticket prices to attrack fans back with this product, I don't see how this will now be possible (unless they come up with a final offer without a floor once more prior to calling impasse).
     
  9. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    74,389
    Likes Received:
    567
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    The first part I agree with fully .. This is all just IMPASSE posturing in hopes that the other side makes a mistake .. otherwise we are heading to a NLRB hearing .

    On the second part I thought that at first, but the fact that the NHL submitted 1 proposal but two options today Linkage and NO linkage that would make it hard to enforce a CBA with multiple options at Impasse time .. SO that was very sneaky on the NHL part to avoid the 22 min Cap perhaps ..
     
  10. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    No problem. I think the last several months of "negotiations" have had a damaging effect on all of our senses.


    Which could possibly be an indicator that there's some genuine hope of using this as a point from which to negotiate an actual deal, rather than strictly setting up an impasse? Am I being overly naive here (perhaps my senses have been damaged too much as well)? It just seems like the more I consider Saskin's interview, along with the upcoming union meetings, and these new additions to the offer, I get the sense that there really might be something to haggle over between the two sides. And these two additions (floor and upward linkage) are not insignificant... they're two of the key features that the PA was looking for in the earlier meeting.

    So... real possibility for negotiation here, or bad misinterpretation on my part?
     
  11. Munchausen

    Munchausen Guest

    I could see it as a positive only if the PA sees the underlying issues (QO, arbitration, floor, upward linkage, etc.) much more important than the actual cap number. But if they did, I feel they would have started negotiating on those to this date untouched specifics (or so it seems) much sooner. Their fight has always been against a cap, and then ultimately the number of that cap.

    Also, Saskin said this was more or less the same proposal the PA rejected time and time again, so I'm not too optimistic as far as progress goes from those two proposals.

    One thing Saksin is right about. Maybe it's time to use their brains and come up with creative ways to please both sides, because it doesn't seem like there's a future when it comes to negotiating a cap number that works for both sides.

    The true positive is Saskin aknowledging that it only gets worse for both sides, his actual words were "everybody knows that", so I guess this means they are not completely out of touch with reality (in other words, the lower cap number came as no surprise).
     
  12. ColoradoHockeyFan

    ColoradoHockeyFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,368
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Denver area
    I just watched the video clip of the panel discussion on tsn.ca, and Healy also mentioned that qualifying offers had been raised from 75% to 85% in today's proposal. Just something else to throw into the mix as far as changes.
     
  13. WHARF1940

    WHARF1940 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    down in a hole
    I don't understand, why would the percentage go down? I understand the cap number going down, but why would the linkage % go down? If they were willing to pay %x amount of their revenues before, just because revenues go down, why would the percentage. The player's slice would shrink as well! This seems very "screw you" to me.
     
  14. kdb209

    kdb209 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    No, it makes sense.

    The teams have other fixed costs in addition to player salaries.

    If revenues go down, those fixed costs eat up a larger and larger chunk of the owners 45% of revenues, so it is reasonable to reduce the linkage percentage on reduced revenue projections.

    Taken to the extreme, if revenues drop below the leagues fixed costs, they could offer a 0% linkage and still lose money.
     
  15. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    And similarly, if there's linkage, if revenues rise, the percentage the players should get should also rise. If they get 55% at $2Bil, perhaps 65% at $3Bil, and so on. Would owners would want two-way indexing of the linkage percentage.
     
  16. kolanos

    kolanos Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would the linkage percentage go up as the revenues go up? That doesn't make much sense, atleast as far as both sides are concerned.

    I can see indexing where the percentage goes up as revenues go down, and the percentage goes down (and levels off) as the revenues go up -- that makes more sense. But indexing only complicates matters.
     
  17. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    Fixed costs are covered. As Revenues rise, fixed costs become a smaller percentage. I dont understand the percentage going up as revenues go down, unless they are trying to maintain a constant total salary amount. WHich doesnt make sense to me.

    I dont know if indexing is the right word, but there would be room for upward adjustments to be made to the percentage as revenues increase. Hypothetically of course.
     
  18. Biggest Canuck Fan

    Biggest Canuck Fan BCF

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Document solutions expert
    Location:
    Abbotsford, BC
    Home Page:
    agree totally. Players are the focal points of the game. If the game recovers the players should benefit.

    But let the owners decide. It is their league.
     
  19. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,797
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I think what owners want is for players to be fixed costs. The players seem to be fighting for the right to remain variable costs.
     
  20. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    32,637
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    So long as that variable isn't down......
     
  21. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    i think at this point, the players just want to see the owners hurt as much as they can inflict. they dont care about the casulaties internally to the PA or anyone else.

    pretty lame if you ask me. hard to understand how they think they (the PA) can win this, so their only motivation at this point must be to see how much they can hurt the NHL owners.

    the more they hurt the owners, the more they hurt themselves. scorched earth at its finest.

    oh well, its just another billion dollars they are burning. i dont know what other logic they can have.

    dr
     
  22. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Burning a billion dollars? You called? :)

    The scorched earth policy is the inevitable conclusion to the course of action chosen by the players from the beginning. Their strategy was to deadline hunt all along, wait out the owners, assuming they'd cave in before the season was cancelled.

    Once the owners proved them wrong, the players have no choice but to continue to wait as long as possible until they literally can't last any longer. It's the only way they can actually "win" this, if they can outwait the owners.

    Personally, I think they'll lose in the end anyway, but I understand the attitude. A player never gives up until the final whistle goes.
     
  23. chiavsfan

    chiavsfan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    4,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Radio News Director
    Location:
    Chicagoland, IL
    Home Page:

    Unfortunately I feel that only applies to about 1/4 of todays players
     
  24. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Yet in the crucial meeting with Mario and Wayne involved the PA only wanted to discuss the underlying issues.

    The NHL offered a small olive branch yesterday. Considering their worsening economic picture, that in and of itself is an interesting development.

    Very little optimism, but at least no outright rejection. Could we actually see a counter-proposal???

    It will have to be some kind of magnificent bolt of lightning. The cap issue is central and cannot be avoided as far as I can see.

    The NHL's offer suggest they will give in on some of the underlying issues and will be willing to allow the cap to rise. IMO, that is the best case scenario for the PA. If they can't come up with some brilliant and unforseen way to address the owners need for control of player costs, then I hope the PA has the sense to work off of the owners non-linked offer by making a real counter-proposal.
     
  25. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is false. They wanted to discuss the non-cap issues first. It was the league that was not prepared to discuss all the issues.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"