Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII

[Fugu]

The ESPN quote from Daly:

"We told them while there was only limited flexibility, the offer was not presented as a 'take it or leave it,'" Daly said. "We are willing to talk about it. But if their position is every other element of our offer is unacceptable -- which they suggested to us at the meeting on Thursday (and I think Don is on the record of stating), -- I'm not sure there is much to talk about currently."

The missing quote is from Bettman, which I am now hunting up.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

•Pierre LeBrun via twitter: Bill Daly: “We withdrew our most recent proposal on Friday, and now we are spending time thinking about our next proposal and how best to get closer to a resolution. We hope the Union is doing the same thing. Given the that the Union refused even to discuss our last proposal, it would appear that we still have a large gulf to bridge.â€


I'm not saying Daly is more credible than Fehr, but you dismiss the claim that the NHL is willing to talk about it's offer because Fehr says so. Daly says they are. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Right, but it also appears that Daly or Bettman told the NHLPA that very little of the offer was open for discussion. I don't think Fehr says that the NHL won't discuss the NHL's offer - he said that at the last minute they made it clear that there was only a limited amount of the offer that they would discuss.

 

[marcel snapshot]

By what measure?

How about more regular season games lost in the sport he oversees due to lockouts than all the other commissioners in the other 3 pro sports combined?

 

[Freudian]

Fehr needs to formally propose the new deal of 50/50 and a version of the make whole so that way he can feel he won and they negotiated off his deal...

As long as Fehr accepts that the cap basically functioning as it does in the last CBA, I suspect he might get more than 50% in year one and possibly year two. And I think he would get some 'wins' in other issues.

But as long as Fehr is trying to get NHL to take half a step back when it comes to the cap (setting up an attack on it next CBA negotiations) we're not going to see hockey.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The ESPN quote from Daly:



The missing quote is from Bettman, which I am now hunting up.

So Daly seems to saying that they are willing to negotiate, while the PA has said that the whole thing is unacceptable and won't negotiate off of it.... Am I missing something here.

You don't have to like it as is, that's why you negotiate...

 

[Ice-Tray]

As long as Fehr accepts that the cap basically functioning as it does in the last CBA, I suspect he might get more than 50% in year one and possibly year two. And I think he would get some 'wins' in other issues.

But as long as Fehr is trying to get NHL to take half a step back when it comes to the cap (setting up an attack on it next CBA negotiations) we're not going to see hockey.

I agree, there is a reason why the NHPA has only proposed a short CBA with the majority of the years delinked. If we apply critical thought the end game for the players is easy to see. All we are witnessing is a half buried battle over linkage, the rest is meaningless at this time.

 

[TruGr1t]

No, Daly said they would discuss "make whole" but the rest of the offer was non-negotiable other than "minor and unsubstantial tweaks".

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19925/deal-revolves-around-solving-make-whole

It's minor tweaks because the league and PA aren't particularly far apart on any issue except linkage. Extend ELC a bit here, rejig contract length there and that portion should be done. It's the contracts persuant to the 50-50 split that is causing all the headaches. What the NHL has been saying is they won't even discuss any proposal that attacks linkage. Much like the players won't even discuss HRR (which the league capitulated on by the way).

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

It's minor tweaks because the league and PA aren't particularly far apart on any issue except linkage.

I haven't heard that from Fehr. In fact, Daly says, "But if their position is every other element of our offer is unacceptable -- which they suggested to us at the meeting on Thursday (and I think Don is on the record of stating), -- I'm not sure there is much to talk about currently".

 

[Ice-Tray]

It's minor tweaks because the league and PA aren't particularly far apart on any issue except linkage. Extend ELC a bit here, rejig contract length there and that portion should be done. It's the contracts persuant to the 50-50 split that is causing all the headaches.

This is true as I see it. I love reading more and more people seeing this negotiation for what it is.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

As long as Fehr accepts that the cap basically functioning as it does in the last CBA, I suspect he might get more than 50% in year one and possibly year two. And I think he would get some 'wins' in other issues.

But as long as Fehr is trying to get NHL to take half a step back when it comes to the cap (setting up an attack on it next CBA negotiations) we're not going to see hockey.

Yup. The issue has nothing to do with the 50/50 #.... it has everything to do with how the actual CBA is constructed on HRR and how that works with escrow, etc.

The NHL proposes to keep it the same and change the % of sharing, the NHLPA wants to change the whole deal.

 

[Freudian]

The ESPN quote from Daly:



The missing quote is from Bettman, which I am now hunting up.

I don't think that quote means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't mean NHL has issued any take it or leave it ultimatum.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I haven't heard that from Fehr. In fact, Daly says, "But if their position is every other element of our offer is unacceptable -- which they suggested to us at the meeting on Thursday (and I think Don is on the record of stating), -- I'm not sure there is much to talk about currently".

He can't come out and say the players have an issue with linkage and want to undermine the cap. Can you imagine how bad the PR would be on THAT one?

Even if the PA was honest and said they just don't want linkage people would freak out and support for the PA would disappear overnight. Even the layperson can see that the players have done really well in the linked system, how will they be able to understand the players killing a season to change it. Talk about bad faith negotiations.

 

[TruGr1t]

I haven't heard that from Fehr. In fact, Daly says, "But if their position is every other element of our offer is unacceptable -- which they suggested to us at the meeting on Thursday (and I think Don is on the record of stating), -- I'm not sure there is much to talk about currently".

That is because the only rhetoric coming out of the PA is about those freaking contracts. Just like prior to the NHL capitulating on HRR (literally leaving it as the players asked them to leave it), the players wouldn't shut-up about hockey related revenues? Where does it end? If the league bends on linkage for say two years the PA will probably hop onto the next issue and label it a 'deal breaker'. The owners only have one iron-clad request: they want a 50-50 split with linkage. Find a way to get it done.

Things like contract lengths and ELCs are background noise...they are probably a couple years or small adjustments apart on those issues. Ownership has to realize they need to make concessions on those issues to get what they truly want.

 

[Huis Clos*]

How about more regular season games lost in the sport he oversees due to lockouts than all the other commissioners in the other 3 pro sports combined?

Surely a stain on his record no doubt. But at the same time you ignore record revenues for the league, a record TV contract, and the most amount of fan interest in the game, ever. The NHL now has kids drafted out of hockey hotbeds such as southern California and Texas. If that doesn't qualify as a steward of the game then I have no idea what does.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I haven't heard that from Fehr. In fact, Daly says, "But if their position is every other element of our offer is unacceptable -- which they suggested to us at the meeting on Thursday (and I think Don is on the record of stating), -- I'm not sure there is much to talk about currently".

If someones says ALL of it is unacceptable, there isn't any negotiation room is there? This in stark contrast to when someone says we are willing to negotiate the 'make whole' and make tweaks elsewhere....

 

[mouser]

True, but the players want to step down into 50%, not get 53% up front and 47% on the back end.

The takeaway is that the NHL's last proposal TECHNICALLY was a 50/50 split starting year one while paying current contracts at face value, but in reality it was a >50% split for current contracts and <50% split for future contracts.

It seems most pundits feel like a soft step down to 50% by year three or so would be an excellent compromise, and it's annoying that neither side proposed it last week.

My suspicion, which I'll admit I don't have any hard evidence for, is that the owners would be willing to flex on a % ramp down. But it needs to be hard linked and I doubt they'll go higher than 51% or possibly 51.5% averaged over the length of the CBA.

The state of the negotiations to me appears to be the PA's strategy is to wait out the owners until they make a more favorable proposal. On the NHL side I don't think the 50/50 was their absolute best take it or leave offer, but they probably haven't left themselves a lot of wiggle room from what they're ultimately willing to accept. I think the NHL would prefer to save their remaining flex room to have it available for concessions in a final round of negotiations. Rather than give it up in a new proposal that the PA might also reject.

Thinking at this point both sides are in a position where making a new offer may not be conducive to their respective strategies.

 

[optimus2861]

The owners only have one iron-clad request: they want a 50-50 split with linkage. Find a way to get it done.

Things like contract lengths and ELCs are background noise...they are probably a couple years or small adjustments apart on those issues. Ownership has to realize they need to make concessions on those issues to get what they truly want.

I think there's one more iron-clad league request: stop the cap-circumventing deals. No more front-loaded, back-diving deals that take players to their 40th birthday. There will be a max-length and/or max-variation clause in the new CBA.

 

[TruGr1t]

I think there's one more iron-clad league request: stop the cap-circumventing deals. No more front-loaded, back-diving deals that take players to their 40th birthday. There will be a max-length and/or max-variation clause in the new CBA.

Well yeah, I think that's a given but is there anyone, I mean anyone who doesn't agree this measure needs to be implemented in some form for linkage to actually work correctly? Max contract lengths are a no brainer if you want the hard cap to function as intended. I'd give the players their 8 years or whatever they want, but it needs to be under 10.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think there's one more iron-clad league request: stop the cap-circumventing deals. No more front-loaded, back-diving deals that take players to their 40th birthday. There will be a max-length and/or max-variation clause in the new CBA.

Nope, it's linkage.... It's the only thing neither side has budged on...

 

[billybudd]

And as if right on cue, twitter is abuzz about Fehr going after the cap. This whole negotiation was a PR blitz to gain player support so that they could say "see how unreasonable the NHL is" no of course they have no recourse but to go after the cap.

Fugu, you have to admit that the NHLPA has been just as diligent with their PR campaign in order to achieve their endgame... Poor players have been left with no choice.

If these rumours are true, can anyone truly feel that PA negotiated with the NHL in good faith?

You have a link to this twitter buzz? All I've seen is one topic on this site saying there's twitter buzz.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You have a link to this twitter buzz? All I've seen is one topic on this site saying there's twitter buzz.

deleted, got info from another thread here that was killed.... jumped the gun....

I really hope that this isn't true....

 

[Freudian]

I think there's one more iron-clad league request: stop the cap-circumventing deals. No more front-loaded, back-diving deals that take players to their 40th birthday. There will be a max-length and/or max-variation clause in the new CBA.

I can imagine NHLPA quite liking those long deals, since it allows for higher salary than cap hit and you can flush out bad cap hits towards the end of the contract by retiring.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

The ESPN quote from Daly:



The missing quote is from Bettman, which I am now hunting up.

I don't want to jump in because I have no idea what the argument has morphed into at this point, but isn't he saying the PA isn't negotiating off of their proposal so they are wasting time essentially? I know that couldn't have been what you were trying to get though.

 

[mossey3535]

Thanks Mercurial. That's a really tough thing for the PA, I think. And, the problem is made worse by the lockout - it's likely that revenues may even go down next year if there is a next year. Then that annuity keeps growing.

I can see the players' point here.

I just can't see an easy way around the impasse....

The player's don't have a point here. Maybe if their union had bothered to actually calculate the ramifications of their own offer they would.

Here is the problem: if you employ some sort of abstract thought to '50/50', you can come up with all sorts of conclusions, like 'oh it comes out of the player share so it must be bad'. Although that idea is completely and utterly wrong.

Assume flat revenue growth year 1 ($3.2B):

NHL 50/50: $1.6B each

Vs NHLPA 13% off top: $425M
Remaining Revenue (87%): $2.8B
NHLPA 50/50: $1.4B each
Actual NHLPA share: $1.4B+$425M = $1.8B = 57%

Note that the share for the NHLPA 50/50 is $200M less than the NHL one.

Ok, so now what's the cap?

NHL: $1.6B/30 teams = median cap = $54M +/- 8M = $46-62M
NHLPA: $1.4B/30 teams = median = $47M +/- 8M = $39-54M

Capgeek LA Kings total cap salary: $62M * 0.87 = $54M So under both proposals this is the amount that needs to fit under the cap. The difference is that the excess 13% is skimmed off the top by the NHLPA, versus being deferred by the NHL. Both proposals pay the face value of the contract.

Notice that the Kings DO NOT fit under the NHLPA cap EVEN after skimming 13% off the top. In the NHL version, they retain 8M in cap space (versus 7M under the old CBA).

Year 2, 5% revenue growth, $3.4B revenue. I used the LA Kings TOTAL deferred monies from Year 1 in this calculation. I also removed the UFA contracts, so the 13% skimmed off the top is ONLY remaining contracts. Otherwise the cap hit would still be $54M ($11M of UFA contracts were freed up).

NHL cap: $49-$65M
NHL cap SPACE: $65M-$43M = $22M - $5M(deferred) = $17M

NHLPA cap: $41-$57M
NHLPA cap SPACE: $57M-$43M = $14M

So under the NHL proposal, the kings have $3M of extra money to sign their 9 UFA's plus incoming players, minus anyone who retires. The NHL 50/50 pays out face value just like the NHLPA 50/50, and it is BETTER for UFA's than the NHLPA 50/50.

The problem with the NHLPA 50/50 is that although it pays face value, it just barely pays them. The actual cap is only 50% of 87% = 43.5%. So for example, if you skim 13% off the teams salary cap from capgeek, you get a median of $53M and average of $52M.

The NHL median for year one is $54M and the NHLPA median is $50M. So under no measure does the NHLPA proposal work with the existing salary structure.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Balderdash. They weren't even willing to negotiate Make Whole, just "tweak" it.

Jarick has portrayed the NHL position accurately.

Is this a serious post? Tweaking something is what a negotiation is.