Honest question: Will the PA be better off?

[Mess]

If I understand the requirements for collective bargaining in good faith as set forth by the NLRB, the employer isn't required to set forth a proposal that "could be accepted," it's required to set forth proposals that can be negotiated. Big difference.

Fair enough .. but "can be negotiated" never happened .. Neither side worked off another sides proposal ..

But the NHL did take the favourable things in the NHLPA one and incorporate it into theirs like the 24% rollback for instance.

and in fact "Final Offer" ..No negotiating was the stance the NHL took before the season was cancelled and the NHL refused to pay the players 1.5 Bil in guaranteed contracts due to the lockout ..

Good Faith ... We will have to let the NLRB decide that ...

 

[X0ssbar]

Crossing the picket line and being kicked out of the PA really hurt the Hall of Fame careers of
JOE MONTANA
TONY DORSETT
JOHN ELWAY

to name just 3 of many.

...wanted to add Lawrence Taylor into your mix as well - I believe he was actually the first "star-type" to cross and then the flood gates opened.

 

[djhn579]

Except he's wrong on the law. Despite what eveyone here wants to think, there are still laws that need to be followed. Your final offer is your final offer.

So, by your standards, we are at impasse because the NHL can no longer make any other offers, good or bad?

 

[djhn579]

Fair enough .. but "can be negotiated" never happened .. Neither side worked off another sides proposal ..

But the NHL did take the favourable things in the NHLPA one and incorporate it into theirs like the 24% rollback for instance.

and in fact "Final Offer" ..No negotiating was the stance the NHL took before the season was cancelled and the NHL refused to pay the players 1.5 Bil in guaranteed contracts due to the lockout ..

Good Faith ... We will have to let the NLRB decide that ...

That "Final Offer", "No Negotiating" was only if the NHLPA wanted to save the season. That offer was made with the stipulation that it was only being offered as a last chance to save the season. Since it was not accepted by the NHLPA, that offer is no longer on the table as that is what the NHL stated when it was offered, that if it was not accepted by whatever time/date, it would be off the table. That is a perfectly legal offer in the eyes of the law. I posted a link where this was supported by the court in similar cases.

 

[kdb209]

Except he's wrong on the law. Despite what eveyone here wants to think, there are still laws that need to be followed. Your final offer is your final offer.

No. The last offer submitted to the PA before an impasse declaration is by definition the final offer.

Just because the season has been cancelled does not mean that negotiations have ended.

Yes the 42.5M cap offer was their final offer in order to salvage a season and playoffs. Once the deadline passed and the season was cancelled that deal is no longer any kind of final offer - Bettman himself said in his PC that the deal was off the table - implicitly stating that there may be other (less favorable) offers in the future.

And if you think I'm wrong on the law - post a cite.

 

[Shark Attack]

And that ought to carry a lot of weight and meaning. This is the leagues 19th final offer, take it or leave it. The NLRB ought to be really impressed with that. .

As opposed to the 1 offer brought forward by the NHLPA, the NLRB would look at that as well.

But lets be realistic here. In previous labor fights where the league used replacement players (football for example) once the labor war was over (and this will end at some point) any player who crossed the picket line and played was no longer allowed to be part of the union. What player is going to risk that? Do you really think the young kids who are trying to make it in the NHL are going to risk playing for 6 weeks or even 6 months just to be blacklisted once the NHL and PA come to an agreement?.

Every heard of a nobody named Joe Montana, he was one of the first to cross the line and you are right he was washed up after that......

So all those players who we have seen glimpses of last year, won't be crossing the line. Instead it will be a bunch of kids who couldn't make it in the NHL if the true talent was playing. Maybe your willing to pay to watch that, but I'm not and I think that is something the league needs to think about. What happens when nobody shows up and they are still paying salaries but there are no ticket sales and no corporate sponsors?.

You seem to think they will be crossing the line in droves to play, I don't agree.

I disagree younger players will cross the line, players under 3 years of service do not have the financial resources to hold out another year. I can hear it now, honey when are you going to get off you but and play again......we have mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay and I need to make payments on my Mercedes, Ferrari and SUV.

Bettman has done just as good of a job silencing the owners and Goodenow has the players, the difference is Goodenow doesn't slap a fine on them when they speak up. Guess thats the only way the league can keep the vocal owners silent

Hehe, you don't hear much from the owners as they are in much more unity than the players. The players just keep spouting off, and I guess they can help it what bothers me most of all are the personal insults that they players have resorted to. When was the last time you told your boss to your face that he was an idiot, stupid....and if you did, did you have a job afterwards...

 

[Shark Attack]

...wanted to add Lawrence Taylor into your mix as well - I believe he was actually the first "star-type" to cross and then the flood gates opened.

Nope, Montana.

 

[Mess]

That "Final Offer", "No Negotiating" was only if the NHLPA wanted to save the season. That offer was made with the stipulation that it was only being offered as a last chance to save the season. Since it was not accepted by the NHLPA, that offer is no longer on the table as that is what the NHL stated when it was offered, that if it was not accepted by whatever time/date, it would be off the table. That is a perfectly legal offer in the eyes of the law. I posted a link where this was supported by the court in similar cases.

Only thing missing from the NHL "Final offer" was a kick to the players groin and the opportunity for the owners to sleep with the players wives if they wanted to ..

Hardly and good Faith offer .. IMO

and from what I understand the key words in IMPASSE and self imposed Owners CBA is that Final Offer that was actually negotiated on ..

The owner can send 100 more proposals the NHLPA way .. If the PA never opens the envelope or answers the phone, since the NHL has always stated they will get worse froim here on in..

Then that in fact is the Final Offer that will need to hold up in courts .. and pass the GOOD FAITH seal of approval..

 

[dakota]

Only thing missing from the NHL "Final offer" was a kick to the players groin and the opportunity for the owners to sleep with the players wives if they wanted to ..

Hardly and good Faith offer .. IMO

and from what I understand the key words in IMPASSE and self imposed Owners CBA is that Final Offer that was actually negotiated on ..

The owner can send 100 more proposals the NHLPA way .. If the PA never opens the envelope or answers the phone, since the NHL has always stated they will get worse froim here on in..

Then that in fact is the Final Offer that will need to hold up in courts .. and pass the GOOD FAITH seal of approval..

if the NHLPA is counting on the NHL to goto court... they again are in for a major suprise I think... what if there is no impasse declared? What does the PA do if the first round of pay checks pass and no one is paid? Second Round? then another cancelled season...

 

[habfan4]

Only thing missing from the NHL "Final offer" was a kick to the players groin and the opportunity for the owners to sleep with the players wives if they wanted to ..

A US$ 1.2 billion (potentially) deal is a real slap in the face .

Hardly and good Faith offer .. IMO

Well we're all entitled to our opinions.

and from what I understand the key words in IMPASSE and self imposed Owners CBA is that Final Offer that was actually negotiated on ..

The owner can send 100 more proposals the NHLPA way .. If the PA never opens the envelope or answers the phone, since the NHL has always stated they will get worse froim here on in..

Then that in fact is the Final Offer that will need to hold up in courts .. and pass the GOOD FAITH seal of approval..

Setting aside the semantics of "final offer" Wouldn't the PA's refusal to accept futher proposals from the League constitute bargaining in bad faith?

 

[mooseOAK*]

Personally, I think that the players are collectively dumb enough to follow Goodenow off of another cliff. I hope I'm wrong but public quotations since make me think that way.

I guess that I was right judging by the quotes after today's meeting:

"The so-called splinter faction in the union that is going a different direction has been drummed up by a lot of media members and people hoping a deal gets done," said Chris Pronger of the St. Louis Blues.

"Coming out of the meeting I can unequivocally say everyone is on board and understands the issues better."

The meeting was called by NHL Players' Association executive director Bob Goodenow.

"I don't think solidarity was ever gone," Goodenow said.

 

[wazee]

"The so-called splinter faction in the union that is going a different direction has been drummed up by a lot of media members and people hoping a deal gets done," said Chris Pronger of the St. Louis Blues.

People who want to get a deal done...Unlike the people in the NHLPA who could care less if they ever get a deal done or not.

 

[Mess]

A US$ 1.2 billion (potentially) deal is a real slap in the face .

Setting aside the semantics of "final offer" Wouldn't the PA's refusal to accept futher proposals from the League constitute bargaining in bad faith?

Well I guess you are basing that on 30 teams each spending 42.5 M .. to the penny..

That Ceiling is optional and also Owner controlled to boot ..

You would have to convince me in GOOD FAITH that Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina etc etc all intend to spend that amount ..

In a Free Old CBA they never came anywhere close ...So what expects you to do it now ??.. That is the same question the NLRB will ask the NHL to prove ..

Realistically it will be far less then that and the NHLPA knows it and expects and most knowledgeable fans do as well .. and there is nothing wrong with by itself because teams are always at different stages and rebuilding / contending etc .

However that aside that is not a benefit to the Union and will use that as its reason to expect a very small /smaller piece of the Pie .. and its FIXED for all 6 years as well ..

now if you include the fact that the other aspects Salary Arbitration, Entry level Contacts, RFA Qualifying etc .. It does not look very appetizing to the other side

then you seal it with every offer will now get worse "Bully Tactics" ...

Lucy .. You got some ESplaining to do .. to the NLRB .. IMO ..

 

[SENSible1*]

Well I guess you are basing that on 30 teams each spending 42.5 M .. to the penny..

That Ceiling is optional and also Owner controlled to boot ..

You would have to convince me in GOOD FAITH that Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina etc etc all intend to spend that amount ..

In a Free Old CBA they never came anywhere close ...So what expects you to do it now ??.. That is the same question the NLRB will ask the NHL to prove ..

Realistically it will be far less then that and the NHLPA knows it and expects and most knowledgeable fans do as well .. and there is nothing wrong with by itself because teams are always at different stages and rebuilding / contending etc .

However that aside that is not a benefit to the Union and will use that as its reason to expect a very small /smaller piece of the Pie .. and its FIXED for all 6 years as well ..

now if you include the fact that the other aspects Salary Arbitration, Entry level Contacts, RFA Qualifying etc .. It does not look very appetizing to the other side

then you seal it with every offer will now get worse "Bully Tactics" ...

Lucy .. You got some ESplaining to do .. to the NLRB .. IMO ..

and we'll be sure to give your opinion all the consideration it deserves.

 

[Vagabond]

"You would have to convince me in GOOD FAITH that Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina etc etc all intend to spend that amount .."

^Even so, the gap is far less as oppose to there not being a cap hense all teams having a fair chance to compete. The gap with the current cba is as much as $45mil as oppose to $10mil or so. This is based on the teams you've mentioned spend the minimum and the big markets spend the maximim under a cap. The smaller the gap, the better all teams can compete.

 

[Licentia]

One would think that rejecting every offer that the NHL put to them and not making a counter offer that was even close to what the league needed that the PA has a plan to win this thing and come out on top.

Trouble is nobody has a clue about what that plan would involve because I don't see the owners coming up with more of their own money to counter the loss of revenues AND sweeten the last offer they made.

What I heard on Sportsnet or TSN - can't remember - was that Bob said to the players that the NHL would break at the Season Deadline. That didn't happen. Now it's just turning out to be a laugh, and will end up just like it did in the NFL because players will cross the picket line and go back to play in the NHL next season. The players have no hope of winning this war.

 

[Mess]

"You would have to convince me in GOOD FAITH that Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Florida, Carolina etc etc all intend to spend that amount .."

^Even so, the gap is far less as oppose to there not being a cap hense all teams having a fair chance to compete. The gap with the current cba is as much as $45mil as oppose to $10mil or so. This is based on the teams you've mentioned spend the minimum and the big markets spend the maximim under a cap. The smaller the gap, the better all teams can compete.

The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup ..

 

[wazee]

The NHL stance was always it needes a Hard cap for Parity and equal opportunity at the Stanley Cup for 30 teams and its last 42.5 proposal had no floor .. (other than min wage 300 -350 k X 23 players ~ 7-10 mil ) .. Well the difference between 42.5 and 10 is 32.5 Mil ..So what is the difference from that and the OLD CBA where a small market team like Phoenix had a 33.0 Mil Salary and the Leafs a 65.0 M Salary .. Still a 32.0 Mil difference in disparity for a Cup ..

It must be extremely painful to pick through details tossing aside any and all that do not fit into your preconceived notions. Were the Leafs the team with the highest payroll last year? No. IIRR, that honor belonged to the Rangers for most of the year, and passed to the Wings after the Rangers started dumping salary. Seems to me, both of those teams were edging close to 80M, but lets say 75M to be on the safe side. I don't think the Yotes were the team with the lowest payroll, either. I was thinking that would have been the Preds or maybe the Wild. In any case, there were several teams with payrolls under 30M. So....the difference between the high and low payrolls was at least 45M (75M - 30M) and was probably over 50M...quite different from the 32M you used in your example.

A salary cap will most definitely help close the payroll gap. It will do so with or without a floor.

 

[me2]

It must be extremely painful to pick through details tossing aside any and all that do not fit into your preconceived notions. Were the Leafs the team with the highest payroll last year? No. IIRR, that honor belonged to the Rangers for most of the year, and passed to the Wings after the Rangers started dumping salary. Seems to me, both of those teams were edging close to 80M, but lets say 75M to be on the safe side. I don't think the Yotes were the team with the lowest payroll, either. I was thinking that would have been the Preds or maybe the Wild. In any case, there were several teams with payrolls under 30M. So....the difference between the high and low payrolls was at least 45M (75M - 30M) and was probably over 50M...quite different from the 32M you used in your example.

A salary cap will most definitely help close the payroll gap. It will do so with or without a floor.

His argument also overlooks one of important detail. A team's budget might stretch to $30m-35m. Under a $42.5m cap if they want to spend $10m ($32.5m below peak spender) and suck that is their choice and its not made for financial reason. Their budget isn't maxed out at $10m. Under the old CBA the Wings spent $78m+, teams were maxing out budgets in the $30m-35m range to compete against that.

There is huge difference between voluntarily spending $32.5M less than the peak spender in order to rebuild (and having money left over) and taxing out the budget and still coming up $32.5m short (and going broke).

How many teams under the old CBA could reach within $15m of the peak spender and make a profit?

How many teams under the a $42.5m CBA could reach within $15m of the peak spender and make a profit?

$63m vs $27.5m.