I'm Gonna Make You An Offer You Can't Refuse (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part VIII ‎

[seanlinden]

The NHL has given the players a fair new proposal.

The players now will decide whether or not to continue with there NHLPA Holdout.

Owners are flexible, proposing new CBA's and keeping out of the media.

Players, want more money, nicer accommodations and are holding out for as much as possible.

NHLPA HOLDOUT.

What's fair about it? They're capping player salaries at well below their fair market value. They're dictating who can sign with which teams, how much they can make, how long they can sign for, and how.

The NHLPA isn't holding out, they're being locked out, by a group of owners who did so 7 years ago, and who want to drastically decrease the amount players earn even more.

You want to talk about playing the PR game??? 50/50 split and an 82 game season don't sound like PR moves to you??? Remember, an 82 game season could've been played, had the owners not locked the players out in the first place.

 

[squidz*]

Parise and Suter must just be going "TAKE IT! TAAAAKE IT!"

Parise and Suter are two of the people least affected by any potential escrow clawbacks. They were threatened with losing 0.4% of their contracts.

 

[Mike Jones]

Those are pretty big poison pills for the PA to swallow. But if the owners don't take a 'take it or leave it' approach, there's still hope for a deal.

I'm not sure they'd do that at this stage of negotiations. From what little I've seen so far they've moved ahead in the PR wars and don't want to screw that up.

My hunch is that they've made their point. Time to move on and do the quid pro quo thing.

 

[Fanned On It]

I don't understand why people are so scared of having an 82 game season come November... I've heard things like back to backs being a problem, an increased rate of injury (which I don't buy), etc etc. Most of the guys in the AHL/NHL have been working out just as they would've in training camp (aside from maybe the team aspects of it like drills and whatnot) so I don't think there is any increased chance of injury in having a sort of jammed 82 game season. I was talking to an NHL'er today at work and I asked him if he thought that 82 games starting from November would be a problem and he said and I quote, "No, why would it? Instead of playing 17 games a month we would just play 20." (not sure if he was being exact on this part but you get the point) He also went on to say that he thinks it'd be stupid for the NHLPA not to accept this offer.


IF the offer does get accepted and the season DOES start up by November 2nd, the NHL source who told me that he thought the season would be back by early November would have been exactly right, lol.

 

[mossey3535]

@aaronward_nhl: Per player source,clarification is needed on HRR definition in league proposal,appears in new offer player share is lowered.Also 'salary

@aaronward_nhl: guarantee/protection',to allow to go from 57% to 50%,means players would likely be paid back by themselves,out of their share in the

@aaronward_nhl: future.Possibility a guy could retire,and players still playing, would be bearing burden to pay him back. #TSN

@aaronward_nhl: Clarification between NHL and NHLPA will come by phone Wednesday and they will meet in person in Toronto on Thursday. #TSN

I highly doubt the HRR definition has been changed, it doesn't make sense in the framework of the NHL offer being done in 9 days. I bet the 'codification' tweet is legitimate and they're confused by the wording.

I also highly doubt that existing contract deferred payments will come out of the player share in the future. The teams themselves probably wouldn't take kindly to some retired player taking up cap hit because they will want to use that money to ice the most competitive team they can.

Of course, technically future players are constantly 'funding' retired players. How do they think their union dues every year get turned into a pension? Also, where do they think this money comes from? Of course it is out of revenues that the team generates, where else is it going to come from besides debt? As long as they negotiate their yearly HRR % correctly, the NHL won't be able to use that loophole.

I understand there are some issues with the CBA from the players side, but these seem like pretty minor concerns for the most part. Maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Crows*]

John Shannon stressing he feels the nhl has been testing the resolve of the pa.. Leading up to this moment and this proposal.

He also just said " I think this gets done and we are playing in November"

He mentioned talking to agents who are optimistic. And that league Max contracts will end up being 7-8 years.

 

[Luck 6]

I don't understand why people are so scared of having an 82 game season come November... I've heard things like back to backs being a problem, an increased rate of injury (which I don't buy), etc etc. Most of the guys in the AHL/NHL have been working out just as they would've in training camp (aside from maybe the team aspects of it like drills and whatnot) so I don't think there is any increased chance of injury in having a sort of jammed 82 game season. I was talking to an NHL'er today at work and I asked him if he thought that 82 games starting from November would be a problem and he said and I quote, "No, why would it? Instead of playing 17 games a month we would just play 20." (not sure if he was being exact on this part but you get the point) He also went on to say that he thinks it'd be stupid for the NHLPA not to accept this offer.


IF the offer does get accepted and the season DOES start up by November 2nd, the NHL source who told me that he thought the season would be back by early November would have been exactly right, lol.

Sometimes you need to protect players from themselves though. An extra 3 days of rest is huge, especially if that rest is well timed. If you lose those 3 days a month over a 7 month season, it does add up. It'll affect some players more than others, those who are older or more injury prone will feel it more. Personally, I hope my team rests some players on back to backs if they do throw together an 82 game season. Player management is important, especially of you want to stay healthy for a long run.

 

[mossey3535]

What's fair about it? They're capping player salaries at well below their fair market value. They're dictating who can sign with which teams, how much they can make, how long they can sign for, and how.

The NHLPA isn't holding out, they're being locked out, by a group of owners who did so 7 years ago, and who want to drastically decrease the amount players earn even more.

You want to talk about playing the PR game??? 50/50 split and an 82 game season don't sound like PR moves to you??? Remember, an 82 game season could've been played, had the owners not locked the players out in the first place.

You know, by definition because they are the only game in town just by signing players at all they set the fair market value, who can sign with who, and how much they can make. The only difference is that in order to impose some financial self-restraint the owners have to legislate it on themselves via collective bargaining to prevent it from being collusion. The players could choose to walk out, but there is nowhere to go that will pay that much or employ as many players.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Or simply obstinate, depending on what those principles are. Why should the players get a higher number than the NFL? At beast, they get 52% for a year or two however the owners will push for 50/50 eventually. If the players refuse, they end up losing more for those principles.

Because the NFL didn't get here overnight. They've had a cap for decades.

You think the NHL can win 20 years of labor victories overnight without a major pushback from the players?

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

I'd like to see the NHLPA offer something like this in return:

51% current definition HRR to players.

7 year contract limit w/contract/cap structure similar to current (counter to owners 5 year/even spread) -- I think 7 years is enough to feasibly get rid of the most ridiculous frontloading. Being able to receive a larger chunk of the money upfront is important to players for investment purposes.

To offset lower % and limited contracts to players, lesser RFA time than current CBA. Players gotta get something favorable out of this.

Increased revenue sharing (more than whatever is in current owners proposal).

Some sort of language that allows for current contracts to keep their dollar value.

Will play full 82 game season within shortened schedule this year.

If the players actually come at the owners with a counter offer like that and the owners can't accept it, the owners can stuff it, imo. It's still a significantly favorable change for the owners from the previous CBA (except a few hardliners who will ***** and moan about the revenue sharing).

 

[RedWingsNow*]

I think the NHLPAs next move will show how committed they are to playing a full season. Their entire mantra so far has been to stick it to Bettman primarily, everything else is seocndary.

I think the PA's next move willl be a good counteroffer to the first real offer the NHL has made.

There seems to be this strange idea that the NHL owners have sacrificed something. They haven't. Everything they've given up is imaginary. Those first two offers were trial balloons that floated like lead balloons.

On Oct. 16, real negotiations have begun.

 

[seanlinden]

You know, by definition because they are the only game in town just by signing players at all they set the fair market value, who can sign with who, and how much they can make. The only difference is that in order to impose some financial self-restraint the owners have to legislate it on themselves via collective bargaining to prevent it from being collusion. The players could choose to walk out, but there is nowhere to go that will pay that much or employ as many players.

Of course... and 7 years ago when they were doing it to a much greater degree, teams were freely spending upwards of 60%.

That whole "method of financial restraint" is flawed at it's core, in the context of fairness. Fair would dictate that a player has 100% freedom of movement, and his services are available to the single team that values him greater than anyone else.

The NHL is, a cartel, legalized by the fact that the players are willing to negotiate as a collective with the collective. That doesn't make it "fair", that's just what they thought was in their best interest.

You get fans on here calling this proposal "fair"... why? Based on the previous CBA, the players give up 12% of their share, have a bunch of restrictions put on, and get absolutely nothing new in exchange. Based on the true definition of fairness (open market), the players are probably sacrificing upwards of 25% of their earning potential (based on 65% in a non-capped system), and agreeing to have teams that they may or may not have any desire to be associated with control their rights for the first 8 years of their career.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Not literally, but they certainly contributed to forcing it to happen.



Perhaps not, but you should counter *some* of them to at least pretend you have some interest in making a deal.

They have interest in making a deal, obviously. But they're not looking to start negotiations half way between the owners' stupid initial offer and the status quo, which is apparently all that would have satisfied many pro-owner poisters.


[/]

From what's been said in many posts here, there hasn't been much caving at all, just a compromise from the initial proposal (and some think it's a very insignificant compromise, at that). However, if it floats the PA's boat to claim this to be some type of major victory, more power to 'em if it means they'll finally start really negotiating.

Ah. So why is everyone so optimistic?

 

[SuperUnknown]

Of course... and 7 years ago when they were doing it to a much greater degree, teams were freely spending upwards of $60m.

That whole "method of financial restraint" is flawed at it's core, in the context of fairness. Fair would dictate that a player has 100% freedom of movement, and his services are available to the single team that values him greater than anyone else.

The NHL is, a cartel, legalized by the fact that the players are willing to negotiate as a collective with the collective. That doesn't make it "fair", that's just what they thought was in their best interest.

The players can rot imo. I'd be happy to spend my cash on players that aren't nickel and diming on our backs.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

I'd like to see the NHLPA offer something like this in return:

51% current definition HRR to players.

7 year contract limit w/contract/cap structure similar to current (counter to owners 5 year/even spread) -- I think 7 years is enough to feasibly get rid of the most ridiculous frontloading. Being able to receive a larger chunk of the money upfront is important to players for investment purposes.

To offset lower % and limited contracts to players, lesser RFA time than current CBA. Players gotta get something favorable out of this.

Increased revenue sharing (more than whatever is in current owners proposal).

Some sort of language that allows for current contracts to keep their dollar value.

Will play full 82 game season within shortened schedule this year.

If the players actually come at the owners with a counter offer like that and the owners can't accept it, the owners can stuff it, imo. It's still a significantly favorable change for the owners from the previous CBA (except a few hardliner
s who will ***** and moan about the revenue sharing).

You won't get what you want. Players aren't going to go below 54 or 55 in their next offer, I don't think.

You're going to get the kind of offer that's been floated on these boards... 55-54-53 etc

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

You won't get what you want. Players aren't going to go below 54 or 55 in their next offer, I don't think.

You're going to get the kind of offer that's been floated on these boards... 55-54-53 etc

Most likely not, and I realize that. My point is more that if the players can manage to come at the owners with an offer that's that good at the owners, and can't take the only two concessions (higher RS and reduced RFA restrictions), then to hell with the owners.

And if the players don't come at the owners with a half reasonable offer, then to hell with them. They've gotta budge at least a couple % from current HRR share and will probably need to take a contract length max (though 5 years is too short).

 

[seanlinden]

The players can rot imo. I'd be happy to spend my cash on players that aren't nickel and diming on our backs.

Ok... your point is?

 

[Ari91]

In the players proposals, they said they were giving up future revenue to hold on to what monies they currently have and that their proposal saw their share go down to 52%. Players want confirmation regarding deferred salaries and HRR. Assuming that HRR remains the same and assuming that deferred salary is structured in a way that is satisfactory to them, what reason would the players have to counter with a percentage higher than 52% if that was what they were 'offering' previously?

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Over 1000.

Continue here
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=55050651#post55050651