Ray Ferarro archived radio - says Players starting to waver about "no-cap" stance

[Slats432]

Yes...let's get back on topic or we will have to close this one.

 

[ti-vite]

Slight modification to performance bonuses also may I add...

 

[Wetcoaster]

The part that I don't understand, it seems like the owners want the players to eat shyte along the way. There last proposal really went out of the way to include some things that were just INSANELY pro-owner (and I'm on the owners side).

Things like:
1) No hold outs. You sign a contract within 2 weeks of camp starting, or you are ineligible to play the entire year. This was always the players only leverage.
2) Adding a fourth year to rookie contracts. This is another HUGE advantage in the owners favor.

I'm not sure if the owners included those so they had something to negotiate away or what, but I would agree that it seems that the owners aren't really negotiating at this point. Instead, they are making demands and putting together an owner "wish list" for a new CBA. (To be fair, one big thing they did include was the profit sharing, which I think that people hear aren't making a big enough deal about).

To me the really imflammatory part was where the owners seemed to be saying ... "Well you have told us you will not accept a salary cap - how about three of them?"

If you look at the last CBA there have been no concessions of any substance offered by the owners for a cap. That is not a negotiation in any way shape or form. generally if you want something in anegotiation - you give up something. this is a grab for the brass ring by the owners.

Thus far there have been no detailed proposals from the NHL that are comparable to the players' offers. The NHL keeps serving up concepts that could have been scrawled on a dinner napkin.

 

[AM]

The problem is

the players havent agreed to talk about linkage.

If they did, then they could discuss whats ancilliary, and whats central.

Its like Bettman said, you have to manage the expectations:

IF he were to show them a couple buckets of corn, theyd just expect the trough and the corn.

 

[Morbo]

Its like Bettman said, you have to manage the expectations

He's done a lousy job of that so far.

 

[wazee]

He's done a lousy job of that so far.

Seems to me that Bettman is steadily moving expectations from 'NO CAP' to 'CAP, but no LINKAGE'. That is a significant shift in expectations.

 

[AM]

I disagree

He's done a lousy job of that so far.

The players are finally figuring out that they are serious.... as an example, at the begining they were saying...

Problem what problem... the Oilers are fine... in fact they are the definition of fine....

Now they are saying, I guess you dont think the Oilers are fine?

2 problems... money and competativeness...

Players have addresed money.... they've said Billionaires and Millionaires can coexist... we just need to let multi-billionaires spend all their money....

Owners have said.... I think we need to control those guys spending habits so there can be a competative league.

Thats the sticking point, and why there is any division in the Owneres/fans side at all.

 

[Morbo]

Seems to me that Bettman is steadily moving expectations from 'NO CAP' to 'CAP, but no LINKAGE'. That is a significant shift in expectations.

Whose expectations has he moved?

 

[Egil]

The Owners are taking a two pronged negotiating approach, but the PA is just finding it insulting, which is unfortunate. The only god damn thing the players have done so far is to try to bribe the owners with the rollback, and tighten the rookie cap SOMEWHAT. Besides that, they have done **** all, despite what Wetcoaster and Ferraro say.

Now, the as I said, the Owners are currently embarking on a two pronged approach. They have the linkage (with hard cap) approach, and then they have the non-cap approach (which would probably only need a cap trigger clause if player salaries go too high). I don't understand what the PA is currently doing, besides getting angry.


The owners would be willing to take virtually anything if the PA agrees to linkage. The ONLY 2 points were I think the owners would bawk is lowering the UFA age (I think the arbitration point from before was the tip off, so they will go down to UFA at age 28), and rookie cap (under a linkage/cap system, you need to control the cost of new players entering the league so that teams can play them). EVERYTHING else from the owners proposal (besides the Linkage + profit sharing), INCLUDING the rollback could be changed by the PA. Just as the league feels the players demanding revenue sharing is BS, the league will allow the players to distribute their share of revenue amongst themselves ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. The PA just needs to bite on the linkage, put in their own CBA for distributing the money, and voila, a CBA is agreed to.

The second apporach from the owners is modifying the current CBA (which is what the players want to freaking do). This is why we have dual sided arbitration, 75% QO, extremely restrictive rookie contracts, and the no hold out provision (which I would like to see changed to forced arbitration). The league is spelling out to the PA what it would take (probably combined with some sort of luxury tax) to get a non-linkage proposal to work. This is why the league said (we would discuss a luxury tax), and why the league put in the deferal clause, as well as the elimination of arbitration clause, if it isn't working for them.

Now, this is why the last proposal from the owners ISN'T designed to get the PA to vote on it, the owners are saving that one. The Owners want the PA to pick an approach to take, and then respond with their "best offer" of that type. My hope is that Bob is getting a feel in the Union about where they stand, if they would prefer the linkage with less restrictions on individual contracts, or the non - linkage (besides a higher threshold cap trigger/exit clause if the system again doesn't work), with rollback and extremely restrictive limitations on individual contracts. Its up the PA to decide, but the owners have shown ALL their cards to the PA, and its the PAs turn to show theirs.

 

[Muleskinner]

You know who has an update about a meeting tomorrow in Toronto between the NHL and the NHLPA. No other outlet is reporting this yet.

We will see.

 

[Jester]

Things like:
1) No hold outs. You sign a contract within 2 weeks of camp starting, or you are ineligible to play the entire year. This was always the players only leverage.
2) Adding a fourth year to rookie contracts. This is another HUGE advantage in the owners favor.

actually the no hold out thing is a two-way street. cuz the team can't get the player to play for them at that point either. player could go play in europe or whatever, whereas the team won't have their talents for that entire season. players may view it negatively, but it isn't as if that isn't punitive to the team to some extent as well.

rookies are going to get hit one way or another in this deal... that's for sure.

 

[firstroundbust]

Yeah sure...she's built like a real woman, I don't know if it's a black thing, but I love an *** like that...I hate seeing girls without one, it's disgusting...

anyways, back on topic

 

[AM]

Yup

The Owners are taking a two pronged negotiating approach, but the PA is just finding it insulting, which is unfortunate. The only god damn thing the players have done so far is to try to bribe the owners with the rollback, and tighten the rookie cap SOMEWHAT. Besides that, they have done **** all, despite what Wetcoaster and Ferraro say.

Now, the as I said, the Owners are currently embarking on a two pronged approach. They have the linkage (with hard cap) approach, and then they have the non-cap approach (which would probably only need a cap trigger clause if player salaries go too high). I don't understand what the PA is currently doing, besides getting angry.
The owners would be willing to take virtually anything if the PA agrees to linkage. The ONLY 2 points were I think the owners would bawk is lowering the UFA age (I think the arbitration point from before was the tip off, so they will go down to UFA at age 28), and rookie cap (under a linkage/cap system, you need to control the cost of new players entering the league so that teams can play them). EVERYTHING else from the owners proposal (besides the Linkage + profit sharing), INCLUDING the rollback could be changed by the PA. Just as the league feels the players demanding revenue sharing is BS, the league will allow the players to distribute their share of revenue amongst themselves ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. The PA just needs to bite on the linkage, put in their own CBA for distributing the money, and voila, a CBA is agreed to.

The second apporach from the owners is modifying the current CBA (which is what the players want to freaking do). This is why we have dual sided arbitration, 75% QO, extremely restrictive rookie contracts, and the no hold out provision (which I would like to see changed to forced arbitration). The league is spelling out to the PA what it would take (probably combined with some sort of luxury tax) to get a non-linkage proposal to work. This is why the league said (we would discuss a luxury tax), and why the league put in the deferal clause, as well as the elimination of arbitration clause, if it isn't working for them.

Now, this is why the last proposal from the owners ISN'T designed to get the PA to vote on it, the owners are saving that one. The Owners want the PA to pick an approach to take, and then respond with their "best offer" of that type. My hope is that Bob is getting a feel in the Union about where they stand, if they would prefer the linkage with less restrictions on individual contracts, or the non - linkage (besides a higher threshold cap trigger/exit clause if the system again doesn't work), with rollback and extremely restrictive limitations on individual contracts. Its up the PA to decide, but the owners have shown ALL their cards to the PA, and its the PAs turn to show theirs.

I guess the players didnt learn anything from Bertuzi's incident?

 

[misterjaggers]

If they get their linkage they have cost certainty. Why bother with all the other crap? If salaries go up because there's only 3 years on entry level contracts, fine, but if it passes the magic 55% number, the owners get the money back. So why try for all the other crap too? Just to piss off the players, imo.

Everything else is negotiable once the players accept the framework.

 

[Russian Fan]

Exactly, how many months has been wasted saying "we will never accept a cap" now it's "we will never accept linkage"

This is exactly why I don't have any respect for the PA...

So if the PA still stand on their hard stance , you don'T have any respect for the PA & IF they can change a bit to get a deal done, you don't have any respect for the PA because they change face.

Is their a way the PA can have a little respect ?

 

[djhn579]

So if the PA still stand on their hard stance , you don'T have any respect for the PA & IF they can change a bit to get a deal done, you don't have any respect for the PA because they change face.

Is their a way the PA can have a little respect ?

It's kind of similar to how the Pro-PA people started out with how "the owners were weak and would just cave like they always do", to the current "the owners have already won, why do they have to be so mean and keep pushung so hard for their cost certainty, they just want to punish the PA..."

It kind of goes both ways....

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Is their a way the PA can have a little respect ?

Sure,accept the fact the league is losing money and take a 1.3m offer for the good of the game.

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

Here's the thing......we're talking about Serena's butt, and the Players......two sets of asses......hiyo!

 

[mr gib]

Seems to me that Bettman is steadily moving expectations from 'NO CAP' to 'CAP, but no LINKAGE'. That is a significant shift in expectations.

bettman and the boys predetermined to take the year off - everything they've offered is of the home run material hoping the players will bite - no point in biting now - linkage is repulsive - link me to the dying ship -

 

[GKJ]

bettman and the boys predetermined to take the year off - everything they've offered is of the home run material hoping the players will bite - no point in biting now - linkage is repulsive - link me to the dying ship -

Exaclty. What happens when in the first 2 years of the CBA a bunch of teams keep hemmoraging money? A salary cap at $26 million. Some teams pay that to 4 guys. This is why linkage will never work because when the league loses money and people have to get in under a lower cap, everyone either has to trade half their team, or have non-guarenteed contracts. It's either more insanity or unreasonable solutions. Some people may think the players are greedy, some of them are stupid (McCabe), but for the most part they are not. The metaphor is right, why link yourself to a sinking ship? Maybe Bettman should get this game back to where it once was before he thinks about linkage, because then if the owners are making money, it's much easier to accept since the salary cap will be going up and not down. Set a number that can go back and forth of a few million, let's talk linkage later when it's a feasable option.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

If the owners are throwing in ludicrous crap into their proposals and happen to get those things somehow, then were just gonna see another strike or lockout or whatever you wanna call it down the road. Forget trying to "earn back" the money you lost 10 years ago with an insane and ludicrous CBA offer. Im not talking about the cap im talking about other things such as no holding out etc. I want a deal fair for BOTH sides so the next lockout/strike that happens is 90 years from now.

 

[mr gib]

Exaclty. What happens when in the first 2 years of the CBA a bunch of teams keep hemmoraging money? A salary cap at $26 million. Some teams pay that to 4 guys. This is why linkage will never work because when the league loses money and people have to get in under a lower cap, everyone either has to trade half their team, or have non-guarenteed contracts. It's either more insanity or unreasonable solutions. Some people may think the players are greedy, some of them are stupid (McCabe), but for the most part they are not. The metaphor is right, why link yourself to a sinking ship? Maybe Bettman should get this game back to where it once was before he thinks about linkage, because then if the owners are making money, it's much easier to accept since the salary cap will be going up and not down. Set a number that can go back and forth of a few million, let's talk linkage later when it's a feasable option.

thanks for the back-up - the owner's just don't want to make a deal - right now - the player's only option is to wait it out - kinda sad - no vision from bettman -

 

[Chayos]

Here's the thing......we're talking about Serena's butt, and the Players......two sets of asses......hiyo!

the player are defintly teh bigger ass!

 

[SENSible1*]

If the PA is so concerned about revenues dropping in the year(s) after a cap, would they be interested in a cap set at $32 - $42M for the first 3 years followed by a linkage at 56%?

 

[Russian Fan]

It's kind of similar to how the Pro-PA people started out with how "the owners were weak and would just cave like they always do", to the current "the owners have already won, why do they have to be so mean and keep pushung so hard for their cost certainty, they just want to punish the PA..."

It kind of goes both ways....

The funny thing about what you say is that IF the Owners compromise, it wont be the pro-players who will feel that the owners cave but the PRO-OWNERS themselves !!!! Most of them got a feeling it's black & white.

About the PA , it's again the PRO-OWNERS who said they don't show respect for the players.