Will players get a better offer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Munchausen

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
There is nothing illegal about it but it's almost certain the NLRB isn't going to uphold an impasse if they do it. The NHL can offer whatever they want, but if it's too far backwards they better hope the PA folds and takes it... because impasse will be out the window. So like I've said, they can go backwards but if impasse is an option they could only go so far, like changing the $32-$42 linkage offer to $30-$40. That would be great and all but even if the NLRB upholds the impasse, the NHL is still going to lose a bunch of teams who are going to be stuck paying $30 million...and even worse be paying replacement players that much for any amount of time.

Plus it's a huge risk. Like you said they have a case with the NLRB for dropping the cap if it sits on hard facts. Problem is they don't have any hard facts on how much attendance will fall. It would be very hard for the NHL to win an impasse at this point especially when they are the ones who caused the lockout in the first place. Considering the consequences, even if the NHL thinks it has a 60% chance of winning impasse, I doubt they do it. If they lose you are looking at a lot of teams who owe a lot of money and most likely you are going to have a few teams fold right away.

I'm not disputing what you're saying, you're right, and beleive me, if the owners indeed try to ram a ridiculous offer down the players' throats just for spite or greed which cannot be justified by the actual economics, I'll be the first one to call them on it.

But the hard fact right now is there's no hard fact (ok sorry that was lame :D). The uncertainty of future revenues makes bringing back linkage not only a valid move, but almost a necessity from a business standpoint.

They will also be able to show direct losses in sponsorship, season ticket sales and TV revenues to further their claim. If the owners go to impasse, trust me they'll make sure they cannot be found guilty of unfair labor practices. If they shrink the cap or bring back linkage, it will have to be justified. I'm sure they have legions of lawers working on that.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
Maybe if they declared Impasse right away, then yes. But that won't happen. There will be negotiations and if Impasse is declared, it will be at the very last minute. Therefore, you figure a new final offer based on new economics might be put in place and that final offer would stand for Impasse. There's one thing both sides were right about. We're back to square one in those negotiations. The previous numbers are history..
This exact statement of yours is the exact opposite of what "Impasse" means and is designed for ..

A clean slate and negotiations beginning from square 1 is the farthest thing you can ever get from having a Impasse declared in fact ..


Its almost like nothing has even happened and you are just starting out or what ever you tried before failed so you have gone back to the beginning and will move forward from here, and as long as both sides are moving or either side is then we dont have an Impasse by definition.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
?

The Messenger said:
Do you believe that ?? I could see that being the case if this was a Players Strike and thus Revenue going done as a result ..

But since its a owners lockout .. They are the ones controlling NO HOCKEY and thus the revenue going down .. That changes things ..

You are rewarding .. Better CBA to the NHL by purposely and controllably doing it themselves ..

The players were the ones who said no to the deal.

The facts are simple:
The NHL losses money and needs to grow the fan base in new areas;
There isnt enough money for marketing because players take all the money;
Having a competative team is a part of marketing;
The only time the owners can set the economics of the game is when they are agreeing to a new CBA.

What part of these facts havent you clued into?
 

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
This exact statement of yours is the exact opposite of what "Impasse" means and is designed for ..

A clean slate and negotiations beginning from square 1 is the farthest thing you can ever get from having a Impasse declared in fact ..


Its almost like nothing has even happened and you are just starting out or what ever you tried before failed so you have gone back to the beginning and will move forward from here, and as long as both sides are moving or either side is then we dont have an Impasse by definition.

I don't see how what I wrote contradicts the notion of impasse. It is only logical that when the economics change (and it needs to be proved they have changed, but it is nonetheless the owners' claim), they are entitled to change direction. It doesn't mean it's bad faith, it means adaptation. If the owners couldn't do that and were forced to negotiate upwards, again, it would put all the leverage in the hands of the players, and the owners would ultimately be negotiating against themselves.

Impasse implies 2 main points. Both parties have negotiated in good faith (or at least the one that might get an unfair labor practice claim filed against him) and that both parties are stalled and are at a dead end. No matter the numbers they're talking about, as long as the process is moving forward, impasse will not and cannot be used. But if negotiations stop and neither side is willing to budge an inch come September, then yes, impasse is an option.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
I'm not disputing what you're saying, you're right, and beleive me, if the owners indeed try to ram a ridiculous offer down the players' throats just for spite or greed which cannot be justified by the actual economics, I'll be the first one to call them on it.

But the hard fact right now is there's no hard fact (ok sorry that was lame :D). The uncertainty of future revenues makes bringing back linkage not only a valid move, but almost a necessity from a business standpoint.

They will also be able to show direct losses in sponsorship, season ticket sales and TV revenues to further their claim. If the owners go to impasse, trust me they'll make sure they cannot be found guilty of unfair labor practices. If they shrink the cap or bring back linkage, it will have to be justified. I'm sure they have legions of lawers working on that.
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to buy a car and you guys are haggling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly you start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the argument that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst ..

I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

NO backtracking allowed .. I believe that is a scare tactic to scare dumb hockey players into caving .. If the NHLPA did not accept 42.5 m Cap then there is no reason to ever believe that they will take a lower one .. I bet the NHLPA is hoping the NHL goes that route with the next offer .. That can only help their cause in IMPASSE courts .. IMO ..

and a clean slate is not an Impasse that suggests again the NHL could put anything it wants if a clean slate is the last negotiated item ..
 
Last edited:

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to but a car and you guys are hagling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the arguement that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst .. I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

NO backtracking allowed .. I believe that is a scare tactic to scare dumb hockey plaers into caving .. If the NHLPA did not accept 42.5 m Cap then there is no reason to ever believe that they will take a lower one .. I bet the NHLPA is hoping the NHL goes that route with the next offer .. That can only help their cause in IMPASSE courts .. IMO ..

Why do you think everybody out there figures the deal will only get worse? Because the financial state of the league will only get worse. You can beleive all you want that the owners cannot go downward, it doesn't make it so. As long as they can prove their offer reflects the current economics, they are entitled to put whatever offer out there. The NLRB is there to prevent them from trying to screw the players over with a lowball offer. But if the numbers are justified, it is still legal and fair bargaining practices. Otherwise, indeed all the players would need to do in order to get their deal is wait 'til the owners caved. The owners have all the leverage, not the players.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
Do you believe that ?? I could see that being the case if this was a Players Strike and thus Revenue going done as a result ..

But since its a owners lockout .. They are the ones controlling NO HOCKEY and thus the revenue going down .. That changes things ..

You are rewarding .. Better CBA to the NHL by purposely and controllably doing it themselves ..


That is bunk. Run that in reverse

A mining company needs to stop wages going up because gold has stayed at $300/oz for 3 years.

The union wants a a 5% payrise per year in the new CBA and strikes. A 5% payrise would drive the company broke.

The price of gold goes from $300/oz to $500oz during the dtrike because of something or other happening and is not expected to fall.

Do you think the union wouldn't increase its demands now the owners are potentially rolling money?

Situations change and with that the bargaining offers will change.
 
Last edited:

tritone

Registered User
Aug 26, 2003
4,979
0
Laval
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to buy a car and you guys are haggling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly you start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the argument that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst ..

I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

NO backtracking allowed .. I believe that is a scare tactic to scare dumb hockey plaers into caving .. If the NHLPA did not accept 42.5 m Cap then there is no reason to ever believe that they will take a lower one .. I bet the NHLPA is hoping the NHL goes that route with the next offer .. That can only help their cause in IMPASSE courts .. IMO ..

and a clean slate is not an Impasse that suggests again the NHL could put anything it wants if a clean slate is the last negotiated item ..

I don't get it...do you , or does anyone , honestly think that the NHL hasn't looked at every single aspect of "Impasse" and acted accordingly thus far? Do you really think they would jeopardize the possibility of using this option simply to make a PR move offer ?? I really think people are mistaking the Owner's and Gary Bettman's business saavy.....Players are being flocked and they are being led off a cliff...the Owners will win this no matter what angle any skeptics can try to offer.....You may disagree with tactics or ploys or numbers but at least have the capacity to realize that the Owners have the money and the lawyers and the business minds to pull this off and they won't allow a "legal" slip up to stop them.....Loop holes will always be available for the American Entrepreneur.
Screw these guys , I'm going Home!
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
The Messenger said:
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to buy a car and you guys are haggling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly you start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the argument that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst ..

I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

What if you are offering less, because over the course of the negotiation, the car has suddenly become worth less. Maybe next years model came out or its been sitting out in the rain rusting while you both have been arguing over price.

The owners are willing to pay the players a certain amount because they (the players) are able to produce a product that generates a certain amount of revenue. If that amount of revenue goes down, the innate value of the players go down.

It would be stupid for the owners to offer more (or even the same) in a damaged economic environment.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
The Messenger said:
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to buy a car and you guys are haggling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly you start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the argument that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst ..

I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

NO backtracking allowed .. I believe that is a scare tactic to scare dumb hockey players into caving .. If the NHLPA did not accept 42.5 m Cap then there is no reason to ever believe that they will take a lower one .. I bet the NHLPA is hoping the NHL goes that route with the next offer .. That can only help their cause in IMPASSE courts .. IMO ..

and a clean slate is not an Impasse that suggests again the NHL could put anything it wants if a clean slate is the last negotiated item ..

This was posted in another thread and gives a pretty difinitve answer from someone with a lot more knowledge of the situation than many of us here...


As the labour board's general counsel, Rosenfeld "will have a great deal of sway over the board and will oversee how quickly the case moves along," said William Gould, professor emeritus of law at Stanford University, chairman of the labour relations board from 1994 to 1998.

"He's going to be a very important character in this dispute," Gould said.

According to several sports lawyers who have worked on cases before the labour relations board, the NHL essentially has two options this fall — and both would likely make their way to Rosenfeld, who declined to discuss specifics of the battle.

The league could either open training camps with temporary replacement players, moving the home games of teams who play in provinces with anti-replacement worker laws, or it could put into effect a new labour contract without any input from the players association.

The contract could include a salary cap that's less enticing to players than the league's last offer of $42.5 million (all figures U.S.) per team, Gould said.

"There's nothing illegal about regressive bargaining," he said. "They could come back with a $35 million cap."


This article also points out that another potential action by the NHLPA to defeat an impasse may not work...

"If the union realizes it's not going to get an injunction, which it probably won't, then it might decertify and try to sue under antitrust law," Gould said.

Trouble is, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a pro football labour battle probably would thwart the hockey players' prospects.

In 1989, the National Football League and its players failed in a series of venomous negotiations to agree on a new collective bargaining agreement. More than 200 NFL players took the league to court, arguing that a contract introduced unilaterally by the league violated U.S. law.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the league was exempt from antitrust laws and the players didn't deserve any special consideration that wouldn't be given to other workers, such as meat packers or coal miners.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...044442957278&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,461
2,512
Edmonton
how about

The Messenger said:
Well I guess that is how you define Good Faith Bargaining ..

If you are about to buy a car and you guys are haggling on the final price trying to find a place in the middle and suddenly you start going the opposite direction from 42 to 40 to 35 etc instead of up , using the argument that I had to take time of work to come make this deal and as a result of lost wages by the hour ..My best offer was my first one and everyone from here in is worst ..

I can tell you one thing you will never get that car and have a real hard time proving Good Faith bargaining in the process ..

NO backtracking allowed .. I believe that is a scare tactic to scare dumb hockey players into caving .. If the NHLPA did not accept 42.5 m Cap then there is no reason to ever believe that they will take a lower one .. I bet the NHLPA is hoping the NHL goes that route with the next offer .. That can only help their cause in IMPASSE courts .. IMO ..

and a clean slate is not an Impasse that suggests again the NHL could put anything it wants if a clean slate is the last negotiated item ..

If the car is evaportating as you talk?

What happens then?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Munchausen said:
Why do you think everybody out there figures the deal will only get worse? Because the financial state of the league will only get worse. You can beleive all you want that the owners cannot go downward, it doesn't make it so. As long as they can prove their offer reflects the current economics, they are entitled to put whatever offer out there. The NLRB is there to prevent them from trying to screw the players over with a lowball offer. But if the numbers are justified, it is still legal and fair bargaining practices. Otherwise, indeed all the players would need to do in order to get their deal is wait 'til the owners caved. The owners have all the leverage, not the players.
First I think both sides are lying constantly and its hard to believe anything that either side says ..

but remember this is a collective bargaining process ..

The NHL has not accepted any NHLPA proposal and vice versa .. to this point ..

Therefore an impartial party would suggest that both sides are equally responsible for the expected loss of Revenue ..and if we are suggesting that both sides are negotiating in Good Faith ..

Then why is it the responsibility of the NHLPA to pay for the loss of expected revenue alone in this process .. If I was a mediator and revenues drop 20 % .. I would say each side needs to take a 10% hit for dragging on the process this long because you knukleheads could not get together long enough to get a deal done and stop the expected Revenue from decreasing..

If the NHLPA was to follow your trend suggestion of lower offers in the futures by increasing the Hard Cap salary amount or suddenly giving another proposal that says the 24% rollback is off the table now because of the full years loss in wages to offset and NHL offer that takes a Hard Cap down to 42 to 40 mil ..

Don't forget both sides can play with numbers .. If the NHL says Revenue is going down so we are giving you a lower Cap . .The NHLPA will say raise ticket prices by 1 or 2 dollars and the Revenue will again be the same as it was .. so no use adjusting the Cap just adjust how you do business in the future etc and generate revenue etc.
 

deathbear

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
2,428
0
Manitoba
Visit site
wow! looks like a dead heat!

way to go players. you all know something we don't. keep up the good work, and sacrifice millions upon millions of dollars. it's appreciated.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Munchausen said:
I'm not disputing what you're saying, you're right, and beleive me, if the owners indeed try to ram a ridiculous offer down the players' throats just for spite or greed which cannot be justified by the actual economics, I'll be the first one to call them on it.

But the hard fact right now is there's no hard fact (ok sorry that was lame :D). The uncertainty of future revenues makes bringing back linkage not only a valid move, but almost a necessity from a business standpoint.

They will also be able to show direct losses in sponsorship, season ticket sales and TV revenues to further their claim. If the owners go to impasse, trust me they'll make sure they cannot be found guilty of unfair labor practices. If they shrink the cap or bring back linkage, it will have to be justified. I'm sure they have legions of lawers working on that.

I agree that if the NHL presents the right information, and enough of it, that the NLRB could let them go backwards and still win an impasse case. But, again, they could only go so far backwards. And the problem is not being able to go backwards, or even get an impasse upheld if they go slightly backwards, both are possible. The problem is that the NHL would need to go sooo far backwards in order for a linkage offer to work that doing so would automatically be bargaining in bad faith. And considering how far they COULD go backwards and still win an impasse it is pretty obvious that even if they did win it would be bad for the league.

The biggest reason being that at this point the NHL can't sustain a reasonable salary floor, at all. Linkage=salary floor and the only way to get that linkage is through impasse.

That being the case, a succesful impasse by the NHL would result in the floor being too high for the league and they would lose more teams than if they just negotated a hard cap and kept the floor out of it. It's not that negotiating is more agreeable to the players, it's that at this point negotiating will also result in the best deal for the NHL. And, there are much much fewer risks involved in negotiating a deal with the PA than trying for an impasse.

Put it this way.
The NHL tries for an impasse with a CBA that is good enough for the league to work on given it's future revenues, and the NHL will lose an impasse due to bad faith bargaining (They would have to go so far backwards to get a workable linkage CBA that it would be considered bad faith) and the league would lose money and probably some teams.

Or, the NHL tries for an impasse with a CBA that is good enough for the NLRB to uphold (considering past proposals this means all teams are spending at least $30-$32 million), and the NHL will lose money and teams under that deal.

Impasse is lose-lose for the owners. They will negotiate because that's how they will end up with the best deal...one without a salary floor. If they bring it to court, they get themselves a salary floor and they can't have that. Therefor, through negotiations, the deal automatically gets better for the players because that's what negotiations are. Now I am not saying the players will get paid more...some teams are going to spend $15 million when play resumes...but the CBA itself will be a better deal for the players in the future, as opposed to the last NHL offer.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
First I think both sides are lying constantly and its hard to believe anything that either side says ..

but remember this is a collective bargaining process ..

The NHL has not accepted any NHLPA proposal and vice versa .. to this point ..

Therefore an impartial party would suggest that both sides are equally responsible for the expected loss of Revenue ..and if we are suggesting that both sides are negotiating in Good Faith ..

Then why is it the responsibility of the NHLPA to pay for the loss of expected revenue alone in this process .. If I was a mediator and revenues drop 20 % .. I would say each side needs to take a 10% hit for dragging on the process this long because you knukleheads could not get together long enough to get a deal done and stop the expected Revenue from decreasing..

If the NHLPA was to follow your trend suggestion of lower offers in the futures by increasing the Hard Cap salary amount or suddenly giving another proposal that says the 24% rollback is off the table now because of the full years loss in wages to offset and NHL offer that takes a Hard Cap down to 42 to 40 mil ..

Let them. Remove the 24% paycut.


1st, no rollback will destroy the UFA market because the mid and upper markets are already at cap. Which means teams like Minny determine how much Chris Pronger is worth not the Blues or TO. Chris, say hello to $4m and goodbye for $8m. Every other team will them threaten their own RFAs will the being released because they can get an UFA cheaper. How much leverage does a guy like Ohlund have if Pronger is getting $4m? Not much.

2, as time goes on the rollback becomes less useful. Less and less players are under contract. They will be welcomed back with "here is your 75% qualifier". So now they get 75% (instead of 76%) and the NHLPA are seen as not having given up anything since they dumped the rollback.


Don't forget both sides can play with numbers .. If the NHL says Revenue is going down so we are giving you a lower Cap . .The NHLPA will say raise ticket prices by 1 or 2 dollars and the Revenue will again be the same as it was .. so no use adjusting the Cap just adjust how you do business in the future etc and generate revenue etc.

And the teams will counter that if the raise prices by $2 dollar they'll lose 4% of their fans.
 

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
First I think both sides are lying constantly and its hard to believe anything that either side says ..

but remember this is a collective bargaining process ..

The NHL has not accepted any NHLPA proposal and vice versa .. to this point ..

Therefore an impartial party would suggest that both sides are equally responsible for the expected loss of Revenue ..and if we are suggesting that both sides are negotiating in Good Faith ..

Then why is it the responsibility of the NHLPA to pay for the loss of expected revenue alone in this process .. If I was a mediator and revenues drop 20 % .. I would say each side needs to take a 10% hit for dragging on the process this long because you knukleheads could not get together long enough to get a deal done and stop the expected Revenue from decreasing..

If the NHLPA was to follow your trend suggestion of lower offers in the futures by increasing the Hard Cap salary amount or suddenly giving another proposal that says the 24% rollback is off the table now because of the full years loss in wages to offset and NHL offer that takes a Hard Cap down to 42 to 40 mil ..


You and me can argue all we want on who's right and who's wrong, but we don't have access to critical information to make that call. If this goes before the NLRB, chances are I'd assume they will have access to that info. From there, all they have to do is grant impasse or not to the owners. They won't act as a mediator. They will just determine if the owners are right or wrong in their decision.

The Messenger said:
Don't forget both sides can play with numbers .. If the NHL says Revenue is going down so we are giving you a lower Cap . .The NHLPA will say raise ticket prices by 1 or 2 dollars and the Revenue will again be the same as it was .. so no use adjusting the Cap just adjust how you do business in the future etc and generate revenue etc.

If the players did that, they'd be laughed out of any legal court. This is precisely what negotiating in bad faith means. We don't want to cut salaries, so just raise the ticket prices. Yeah right. Trust me, if the owners could raise their ticket prices even by a penny, they'd do it. They're in it to make money, so they'll bring the prices to their threshold at all times. But right now, the league is certainly not in a position to raise their prices. It's a basic offer and demand concept. The demand needs to grow in order for ticket prices to grow, and players have absolutely no say in this. It's not their businesses.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
nyr7andcounting said:
I agree that if the NHL presents the right information, and enough of it, that the NLRB could let them go backwards and still win an impasse case. But, again, they could only go so far backwards. And the problem is not being able to go backwards, or even get an impasse upheld if they go slightly backwards, both are possible. The problem is that the NHL would need to go sooo far backwards in order for a linkage offer to work that doing so would automatically be bargaining in bad faith. And considering how far they COULD go backwards and still win an impasse it is pretty obvious that even if they did win it would be bad for the league.

They could go back to their old offer of 53-55%.
They could drop to $35m hard cap.

Bad faith bargaining? That is for the NHLPA and NHL to argue in front of the NLRB. If the NHL can produce documentation to support its case it should be safe. It could come down to whether the judge gets out of bed on the right side that day.


The biggest reason being that at this point the NHL can't sustain a reasonable salary floor, at all. Linkage=salary floor and the only way to get that linkage is through impasse.

Not true at all. The owner get overpayments back via escrow. They could easily offer the same system. No floor, just escrow. If they drop below 53% then players are paid a certain percentage more to get them up to 53%.

That being the case, a succesful impasse by the NHL would result in the floor being too high for the league and they would lose more teams than if they just negotated a hard cap and kept the floor out of it. It's not that negotiating is more agreeable to the players, it's that at this point negotiating will also result in the best deal for the NHL. And, there are much much fewer risks involved in negotiating a deal with the PA than trying for an impasse.

They don't need a floor in their offer. If they are promising a min of 53% they just need a means to deliver it.


Or, the NHL tries for an impasse with a CBA that is good enough for the NLRB to uphold (considering past proposals this means all teams are spending at least $30-$32 million), and the NHL will lose money and teams under that deal.

Linkage, linkage, linkage. Sure some might lose money meeting a $30m floor but they get most of the loss back from the players' by raiding the players' escrow fund. Everybody loses. Good hey. :bow:


Impasse is lose-lose for the owners. They will negotiate because that's how they will end up with the best deal...one without a salary floor. If they bring it to court, they get themselves a salary floor and they can't have that.

There is a flaw in your floor.

Therefore, through negotiations, the deal automatically gets better for the players because that's what negotiations are.
Assumption.
Now I am not saying the players will get paid more...some teams are going to spend $15 million when play resumes...but the CBA itself will be a better deal for the players in the future, as opposed to the last NHL offer.

pie in the sky.
 

Munchausen

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
I agree that if the NHL presents the right information, and enough of it, that the NLRB could let them go backwards and still win an impasse case. But, again, they could only go so far backwards. And the problem is not being able to go backwards, or even get an impasse upheld if they go slightly backwards, both are possible. The problem is that the NHL would need to go sooo far backwards in order for a linkage offer to work that doing so would automatically be bargaining in bad faith. And considering how far they COULD go backwards and still win an impasse it is pretty obvious that even if they did win it would be bad for the league.

The biggest reason being that at this point the NHL can't sustain a reasonable salary floor, at all. Linkage=salary floor and the only way to get that linkage is through impasse.

That being the case, a succesful impasse by the NHL would result in the floor being too high for the league and they would lose more teams than if they just negotated a hard cap and kept the floor out of it. It's not that negotiating is more agreeable to the players, it's that at this point negotiating will also result in the best deal for the NHL. And, there are much much fewer risks involved in negotiating a deal with the PA than trying for an impasse.

Put it this way.
The NHL tries for an impasse with a CBA that is good enough for the league to work on given it's future revenues, and the NHL will lose an impasse due to bad faith bargaining (They would have to go so far backwards to get a workable linkage CBA that it would be considered bad faith) and the league would lose money and probably some teams.

Or, the NHL tries for an impasse with a CBA that is good enough for the NLRB to uphold (considering past proposals this means all teams are spending at least $30-$32 million), and the NHL will lose money and teams under that deal.

Impasse is lose-lose for the owners. They will negotiate because that's how they will end up with the best deal...one without a salary floor. If they bring it to court, they get themselves a salary floor and they can't have that. Therefor, through negotiations, the deal automatically gets better for the players because that's what negotiations are. Now I am not saying the players will get paid more...some teams are going to spend $15 million when play resumes...but the CBA itself will be a better deal for the players in the future, as opposed to the last NHL offer.

I don't understand what you mean by going so far backward for a linkage to work that it would be bargaining in bad faith. Nor do I understand why the floor would need to be brought too high.

It's not complicated really. Linkage means revenues are tied to salaries. When they determine the amount they want to pay to players (53%, 55%, 57%, 60%, whatever number they feel they can live with), then they determine what their revenues are (which is what the players don't trust) and based on that, come up with a floating hard cap that will grow or shrink according to league wide revenues. Nothing unethical about that, granted their numbers are proven accurate.

As for the floor, no matter where it comes at, they can help the teams in trouble with revenue sharing, a thing the league said they were willing to consider once a structure is put in place.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Munchausen said:
I don't understand what you mean by going so far backward for a linkage to work that it would be bargaining in bad faith. Nor do I understand why the floor would need to be brought too high.

It's not complicated really. Linkage means revenues are tied to salaries. When they determine the amount they want to pay to players (53%, 55%, 57%, 60%, whatever number they feel they can live with), then they determine what their revenues are (which is what the players don't trust) and based on that, come up with a floating hard cap that will grow or shrink according to league wide revenues. Nothing unethical about that, granted their numbers are proven accurate.

As for the floor, no matter where it comes at, they can help the teams in trouble with revenue sharing, a thing the league said they were willing to consider once a structure is put in place.

Yea I am not a moron I understand how linkage works. I don't even know what to reply to that, I agree I guess. That is how linkage works, you are a genius.

Anyway, what don't you understand about "going so far backward for a linkage to work that it would be bargaining in bad faith"?

It is clear that if the NHL had any system where teams would have to spend at least around $28 million, a lot of teams would lose money when they come back and some teams might even fold. The problem is they have already offered that the linked cap would not go any lower than $32 million. Now I can see the NLRB granting a small exception to that number going backwards, but not too far backwards. I would say the best the NHL would be able to slip by the NLRB is around $28 million (it's a stretch but let's say they can do it). And, at that number it would probably be too high for the first couple of years, they might lose some teams if they force them to spend $28 or $30 million. In other words, if the NHL won an impasse it would likely be worse for the league than negotiating a hard cap and no floor.

And what would the NHL have to do to get a linked impasse that would be more effective then negotiating? The floor would have to be like $20 million if the NHL wants to minimize losses and keep all 30 teams. But clearly, if they offered that and than tried to win an impasse the NLRB would slap them with bad faith negotiating. Remember, they have previously offered a $32-$42 range, going down to $20-$30 would never work, that is too far. This is what I mean by the linkage having to drop so much to work that the NLRB would call them on bad faith negotiating. In this case, the outcome would be even worse than if the NHL won an impasse.

The bottom line is the risk of an impasse by the league is much greater than it's rewards. And either way, win or lose, the NHL would be better off negotiating a hard cap/no salary floor deal with the PA. The NHL needs a deal without a floor to get teams back on their feet. Like I said in an earlier post... you are Mario Lemieux. If winning an impasse means you have to spend $30 million and go out of business and losing an impasse means you have to pay players for time missed and play under the old CBA, and thus go out of business, would you support attempting an impasse? No way, wouldn't make any sense. The best deal for the NHL no doubt would be a $42-$45 million cap with no floor. That is not a deal that they can get through impasse, therefore I don't see that as there next move or a move at any time in this process.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Lou is God said:
It's 216-14 against the players getting a better deal, why can we see this and not them? Amazing.

Reply to my first post if you want to konw why I can't see it.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Out of curiosity, could the NLRB recommend linkage? I realize that they only rule on whether the parties have bargained in good faith or not, but they write long opinions, as every court does, and can hint at what they look for. A major issue is what revenues will be when hockey returns, I just do not see how the NLRB can rule, backward offer or not, without some clue as to the effect the lockout has had. I just do not see how they can say the NHL, or the players for that matter, have bargained fairly or not without judging their position against what revenues are when you have no clue at all what revenues will be. Only possible way to have any way at all of assessing that is linkage, and could they not say as much?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Jaded-Fan said:
Out of curiosity, could the NLRB recommend linkage? I realize that they only rule on whether the parties have bargained in good faith or not, but they write long opinions, as every court does, and can hint at what they look for. A major issue is what revenues will be when hockey returns, I just do not see how the NLRB can rule, backward offer or not, without some clue as to the effect the lockout has had. I just do not see how they can say the NHL, or the players for that matter, have bargained fairly or not without judging their position against what revenues are when you have no clue at all what revenues will be. Only possible way to have any way at all of assessing that is linkage, and could they not say as much?

I don't know if they could recommend it, but they will certainly give their opinion on it when they rule. An impasse won't be declared unless the NHL proposes linkage once again. So if it gets to that point and an impasse is tried the NLRB might accept the fact that the NHL is offering linkage again, eventhough theoretically it would be going backwards as far as negotiations. The NLRB might buy the argument that revenues are decreasing by the day and we need linkage because there is no way we can set an arbitrary cap with just a vague idea of revenues. It isn't a great argument but it could definetly work.

But, I think that is as far as the NLRB will let them go with it. Even if the NLRB is okay with them going back to linkage, I doubt they could let them go any farther than around their last linkage offer because the PA would simply have too good of a case for bad faith bargaining at that point. If anything, the NLRB would probably say you can have linkage, you get the 2/2 proposal with the min $32 max $42. In this case, would it really be worth it for the NHL? No.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Lou is God said:
It's 216-14 against the players getting a better deal, why can we see this and not them? Amazing.
Miracle on Ice

The Year 1980 .. These things happen ..

Who here had Calgary and TB in the final before last years playoffs ??

You got to love cheering for the underdog in all aspects of life .. MLB took their PA to court and lost BIG TIME .. History has a way of repeating itself ..
 

Mountain Dude

Guest
The Messenger said:
Miracle on Ice

The Year 1980 .. These things happen ..

Who here had Calgary and TB in the final before last years playoffs ??

You got to love cheering for the underdog in all aspects of life .. MLB took their PA to court and lost BIG TIME .. History has a way of repeating itself ..

Thats a good analogy. :speechles

Give your head a shake man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->