Final Meeting that took a very different course then expected

[Mess]

Do you guys want the Pro-Fan perspective of this last meeting ..

I can try to explain it from a neutral point of view as an observers what I believed happened ..and what went wrong.

Notice: I accept Gretzky at his word as 100% honest and that the NHL called the meeting on the request of the NHLPA and Bettman is clear of any wrong doing at all in this, as is Bob Goodenow as both did not attend nor effect the outcome of the meeting.

With that is was determined in Gretzky's own words that Bettman told him he was prepared to go to 45. Mil to get a deal done . So the NHL came to this meeting expecting a new proposal from the NHLPA ..and I am sure the 45 Mil was leaked out to the both sides new it going into the meeting with the possibility of 45 being the final number to get a deal done.

This the Agreement in principle thought by all going into this meeting ..

First some facts ..

Saskin has said many many times that the NHLPA needs to get in a room and discuss the issues and they do not believe in throwing proposals back and forth, but talk things through and negotiate on a new CBA..

Gretzky from the TSN report pulls Linden and Damphousse before the meeting is to begin and confirms that the NHL is prepared to go 45 mil. Linden and Vinny trust Gretzky and would not have gotten that from Daley or anyone else then from Mario or Wayne. This the first reason they were asked to attend..

So Far so good everyone is on the same page ...

The NHLPA is holding the Final Trump card and that is to put the 45.M on the table from the NHLPA side to get a deal done "In Principle" again..

but before playing the last card that would seal the deal, Damphousse as the story goes stands up and says "lets go over the other issues of the CBA FIRST and make sure we are on the same page and lets talk through or negotiate on Salary Arbitration, RFA Qualifying offers, UFA age, Entry level contracts and bonuses, Hard Cap Floor and most importantly meaningful long-term Revenue Sharing plan.

So that is the direction the meeting now takes .. and it is soon evident that both sides have varying degrees of differences on these issues .. Some on the main ones that have leaked out are or have been reported is that the NHLPA Revenue Sharing model is long term and the NHL is a 6 year plan that slowly decreases to Zero in the Final year. Okay Problem #1..can we resolve this today .. NO not likely ..

Then the last NHLPA proposal suggested a 25 Mil floor , and the last NHL offer had Zero in for the floor .. Problem # 2

and likely so on and so on some of the others issues ..however every thing on all other issues was not leaked out or was not reported yet. But certainly some other problems existed ..

So now both sides realized they still had work ahead .. Prompting the final comment by Saskin as the meeting broke up that we still have lots of differences on some big issues and they can't be resolved in time to save the 2004-05 season ..

However that is not likely how the NHLPA hoped the meeting would go as evident by the Press conference, scheduled later that day.

What the NHLPA hoped would have transpired was that Mario and Wayne's opinion on some of these issues would help bridge the gap in the discussions on these sub-issues. From the TSN report though it sounds like Wayne neither wanted to, or expected to get into that as he is not in a decision making position and Mario is in a conflict of interest position being both player and Owner ..but reason #2 the NHLPA wanted them there ..

Bottom Line : If these issues would have been agreed on in principle in the meeting and head way made ..then Saskin would have played the final card and said if the NHL is willing to meet the NHLPA at the 45.0 Mil Hard Cap then I believe we have a deal "In Principle" .. he would have reached across the table and shook Daley hand and ..

Saskin's final words would have been .. I will take this agreed upon items back and prepare a formal proposal for the NHLPA to the NHL based on today's discussions and..

then Let Gary and Bob go over it putting their final seal of approval on it and take it back to each side to vote upon .. Gentleman we have a Deal ..

However those difference (Revenue Sharing, Arbitration etc) were not resolved and the last card (45.m Hard Cap not played) and the meeting breaking off with Saskin's final words .. We are further apart then both sides thought ..

This makes Gretzky's TSN report fall in line as well as the NHL believing it was getting a New Proposal ,and a miscommunication of both sides as to the intent of the meeting, or at least that the differences could not be resolved on the issues ..

That leaves right were we are now ... The season not being uncancelled, and no need for the NHLPA to draw up the final proposal even though now the Hard Cap Ceiling figure is not the biggest issue preventing an agreement.

With the season gone as well, that took all the motivation out of the NHLPA side as its players would neither be playing or earning money this year, and no Stanley Cup Playoffs would be played.

Season lost and meeting a bust both sides left dejected ..and the "In Principle deal" never transpired ..

TSN REPORT:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115751&hubName=nhl

Click to read more...

 

[ladybugblue]

I agree that I don't think either side intentionally decieved the other side but was a big miscommunication. However, both sides should have worked out some details and explained exactly what was happening given the media reaction on Friday before the meeting even took place. However, I think many players not on the executive committee wanted the NHLPA to give another proposal hence some of the media leaks on the players side. The players just want to play and I think their optimism burned absolutely everyone. However, I was hoping that the players and owners would come together sooner rather than later to get a new agreement for next year...but given how things look now it is rather unlikely.

 

[sundstrom]

even if this is exactly true, it does not clear the players from blame when it comes to the fact that this meeting is happening in FEBRUARY, not September/October.

 

[Jarqui]

With that it was determined in Gretzky's own words that Bettman told him he was prepared to go to 45. Mil to get a deal done. So the NHL came to this meeting expecting a new proposal from the NHLPA ..and I am sure the 45 Mil was leaked out to the both sides new it going into the meeting with the possibility of 45 being the final number to get a deal done

How do you reconcile the above statement with Gretzky's words from your linked article ?

Gary never told me or led me to believe [the NHL] was coming to the meeting with a new proposal, or had committed to raising the hard cap number from the previous $42.5 million. Gary never told me the league was prepared to go to $45M.

What Gretzky actually says seems to be the exact opposite of what you are saying. Bettman NEVER told Gretzky that he was prepared to go to $45 mil or make a proposal - according to Gretzky.

I'm confused. Am I missing something obvious here ?

 

[Old Hickory]

Every news report denies a deal in principle and states the owners made and offer. Not the players.

 

[DJ Spinoza]

Why would Gretzky lie (I'm addressing this generally, not to KingsJohn...) and why would the owners call the meeting in the first place? That's a sign of weakness. They already spoke when Bettman cancelled the season.

Gretzky's story makes perfect sense to me.

I question whether the players ever had an offer or would have went to 45 million. They called the meeting and never made a proposal. The owners and players couldn't have been too far apart on any of the issues that Gretzky said Damphousse and Linden wanted to talk about. It was pretty much accepted I thought that the players would win most of those minor things in comparison to the cap.

But the cap number, which is the crux of everything now, was never talked about. The burden here has to fall on the players and the Union. They wanted to have this meeting, but weren't willing to discuss the biggest part? They never got to it?

Something doesn't add up. I'm taking Gretzky's word as 100% truth mostly because I choose to. I don't think he has a reason to posture or lie here, and I would never suspect him to do that.

I am starting to question if this meeting was some kind of PR stunt like people have speculated by the players, because it seems like they never really had a proposal planned, and they wouldn't talk about the biggest part of any kind of deal.

So why have the meeting then? Something just doesn't add up. People may blame the media and fans for jumping all over the THN breaking story on Friday night, but I honestly can't blame the media or fans. It was HUGE news, because the agreement on the cap number WAS the thing we've all been led to believe has held this up.

We all just went by what that anonomous player said. THN wouldn't just make up a quote.

The anonomous player was either lying through his teeth or completely uninformed about the situation. Maybe both.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this. Gretzky coming out and talking a little about some specifics has really cleared this up for me, though. I was a little upset at any and all sides on Saturday, but now that I can step back and look at this a little more objectively, it seems apparent to me that something fishy or seriously disorganized went on Saturday. And I'm blaming the Union and players.

 

[mr gib]

Why would Gretzky lie (I'm addressing this generally, not to KingsJohn...) and why would the owners call the meeting in the first place? That's a sign of weakness. They already spoke when Bettman cancelled the season.

Gretzky's story makes perfect sense to me.

I question whether the players ever had an offer or would have went to 45 million. They called the meeting and never made a proposal. The owners and players couldn't have been too far apart on any of the issues that Gretzky said Damphousse and Linden wanted to talk about. It was pretty much accepted I thought that the players would win most of those minor things in comparison to the cap.

But the cap number, which is the crux of everything now, was never talked about. The burden here has to fall on the players and the Union. They wanted to have this meeting, but weren't willing to discuss the biggest part? They never got to it?

Something doesn't add up. I'm taking Gretzky's word as 100% truth mostly because I choose to. I don't think he has a reason to posture or lie here, and I would never suspect him to do that.

I am starting to question if this meeting was some kind of PR stunt like people have speculated by the players, because it seems like they never really had a proposal planned, and they wouldn't talk about the biggest part of any kind of deal.

So why have the meeting then? Something just doesn't add up. People may blame the media and fans for jumping all over the THN breaking story on Friday night, but I honestly can't blame the media or fans. It was HUGE news, because the agreement on the cap number WAS the thing we've all been led to believe has held this up.

We all just went by what that anonomous player said. THN wouldn't just make up a quote.

The anonomous player was either lying through his teeth or completely uninformed about the situation. Maybe both.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this. Gretzky coming out and talking a little about some specifics has really cleared this up for me, though. I was a little upset at any and all sides on Saturday, but now that I can step back and look at this a little more objectively, it seems apparent to me that something fishy or seriously disorganized went on Saturday. And I'm blaming the Union and players.

i'm with sutter - bring in a mediator -

 

[HockeyCritter]

They've already had mediators sit in on some of the meetings . . . to no avail, perhaps you mean binding arbitration?

 

[Jarqui]

Every news report denies a deal in principle and states the owners made and offer. Not the players.

I just heard Gretzky on the FAN590 (again). I heard him before he went to the meeting as well. The players pressed Gretzky to go to this meeting and they effectively called the meeting while asking Bettman to make the "formal" call. Gretzky had declined numerous requests to get involved before for good reasons. The indication to him was that they would move on the cap and would propose that. Gretzky expected them to make that proposal but they didn't. Instead, they wanted to go through everything else first and never got to making the proposal.

According to Gretzky, the owners never made an offer. The owners answered questions about their proposal.

Now who do I believe - The Hockey News or Gretzky ? Gretzky's story makes a ton of sense and was delivered with a tone of decency and fairness regardless of what you may have read in the rumour mongering press.

 

[Kritter471]

Perhaps a proposal would have been made if the sides could come to an agreement on the other issues? I can see both sides telling the truth in this, to be honest. And frankly, I see the logic in saying "look, we're not going to talk about a cap again until we get all the other side issues settled."

 

[Jarqui]

Perhaps a proposal would have been made if the sides could come to an agreement on the other issues? I can see both sides telling the truth in this, to be honest. And frankly, I see the logic in saying "look, we're not going to talk about a cap again until we get all the other side issues settled."

Unfortunately Wayne & Mario wee not aware of that. As well, in the past deals/discussions, they have got a framework and then got to the details. This time they went for the details before the got to the framework because I think they assumed the philosophy was "acceptable" and they just need to get to a number.

Each of those little details, however, has got something like $50 mil beside it. So I can't exactly blame them.

As well, a cap tied to revenues, a floor, revenue sharing & all the other details are all interrelated and like trying to solve a rubix cube with each party taking a turn spinning it to their advantage or changing a few colors. I think the complexity along with the mistrust makes it difficult to solve quickly - even if that was their honest intention on Saturday.

 

[Kritter471]

Unfortunately Wayne & Mario wee not aware of that. As well, in the past deals/discussions, they have got a framework and then got to the details. This time they went for the details before the got to the framework because I think they assumed the philosophy was "acceptable" and they just need to get to a number.

Each of those little details, however, has got something like $50 mil beside it. So I can't exactly blame them.

As well, a cap tied to revenues, a floor, revenue sharing & all the other details are all interrelated and like trying to solve a rubix cube with each party taking a turn spinning it to their advantage or changing a few colors. I think the complexity along with the mistrust makes it difficult to solve quickly - even if that was their honest intention on Saturday.

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just proposing a potential alternative to the conspiracy theorists who think this was no more than a PR stunt by one side or the other.

 

[Donnie D]

Perhaps a proposal would have been made if the sides could come to an agreement on the other issues? I can see both sides telling the truth in this, to be honest. And frankly, I see the logic in saying "look, we're not going to talk about a cap again until we get all the other side issues settled."

Agreed. Perhaps with meaningful revenue sharing and a minimum, they would have been willing to accept $42.5.

 

[me2]

i'm with sutter - bring in a mediator -

I can see it

BEFORE MEDIATOR

Daly "This is our plan for arbitration........"
Saskins "That sucks, no way"
Saskins "This is our plan for arbitration........"
Daly "That sucks, no way"

WITH MEDIATOR

Daly "This is our plan for arbitration........"
Saskins "This is our plan for arbitration........"
Mediator "I've listened to both and this is the best way to move forward........"
Sasking & Daly together "That sucks, no way"

 

[me2]

Agreed. Perhaps with meaningful revenue sharing and a minimum, they would have been willing to accept $42.5.

The NHL is working towards $100m in sharing. Depending on how it is allocated it could make a big difference.
ie
4 lowest earners get $10m
4 next get $7.5m
4 next lowest get $5m
4 next get $2.5m

Seems pretty meaningful. Or it could be useless if they give everybody $3.3m.

 

[Kritter471]

The NHL is working towards $100m in sharing. Depending on how it is allocated it could make a big difference.
ie
4 lowest earners get $10m
4 next get $7.5m
4 next lowest get $5m
4 next get $2.5m

Seems pretty meaningful. Or it could be useless if they give everybody $3.3m.

A cap will never, ever fly with the players without a minimum salary amount.

 

[me2]

A cap will never, ever fly with the players without a minimum salary amount.

There is a minimum salary amount: $300K/year/player ($7m/y/team).

The problem with any floor is nobody knows how hard the NHL will be hit by the lockout. They could lose 30% of their revenue. That means a salary floor would have to be put around $10-12m. And what is the point of that?

 

[Kritter471]

A minumum salary ensures the competitive balance the league is nominally trying to achieve. It also makes owners responsible for at least trying to put a semi-competitive product on the ice.

Let's say a non-linked hard cap ends up at... $39 million (just for the sake of arguments). Now, let's say we have no floor. What's to stop Wirtz from having a team salary of $10 million and whining for a stricter cap because he can't compete with salaries that are four times what he's willing to pay? Or from spending 36 percent of his revenue on salaries and keeping the rest for himself (which is his right as of the last CBA)?

It's a compromise in an effort of good faith. If the NHL expects the players to accept artificial dampners on salary inflation, they must be willing to accept themselves some sort of artificial salaray minumum in order to ensure player's make what they are entitled to since they are not only the employee but the product being marketed. If the NHL wants to move away from a free market into a controlled form of socialism, it must be willing to accept the proletariet ideals from the system's original design.

 

[mr gib]

They've already had mediators sit in on some of the meetings . . . to no avail, perhaps you mean binding arbitration?

the mediators got the league to take off linkage and bob to accept a salary cap - try that process again - this is going nowhere - binding arbitration maybe - i guess they have to agree on that too -

 

[Mess]

There is a minimum salary amount: $300K/year/player ($7m/y/team).

The problem with any floor is nobody knows how hard the NHL will be hit by the lockout. They could lose 30% of their revenue. That means a salary floor would have to be put around $10-12m. And what is the point of that?

That is an easy fix ..

The Hard Cap Ceiling is an agreed upon Fixed amount ..

The Hard Cap Floor is based on an agreed upon percentage of league Revenue.. ie. If the former Ceiling was based on 55% perhaps the Floor is 30 - 35 % of revenue ..

I don't know why the NHLPA would have a problem with that concept. Its not the floor that is the deal breaker but the Ceiling in fact ..

 

[Donnie D]

The NHL is working towards $100m in sharing. Depending on how it is allocated it could make a big difference.
ie
4 lowest earners get $10m
4 next get $7.5m
4 next lowest get $5m
4 next get $2.5m

Seems pretty meaningful. Or it could be useless if they give everybody $3.3m.

Depends. If you are losing the $10 - 15 million the owners say they are losing, it isn't meaningful.