It's Not About Winning Or Losing. It's About Who Gets The Blame (CBA/Lockout) XVI

[haseoke39]

lol...how on earth did the players negotiation contracts in "bad faith"?

Bad faith would be not intending to honor the contract. But everybody and their brother knew the contracts were subject to the CBA. It's 100% legal and entirely over the table. And when the players saw half the league writing checks with red ink and no other major sports league offering more than 50% of revenues, they knew the NHL would be coming after them. Deal with it. There's nothing unconscionable, and certainly nothing legally shady about what they're doing.

Again, arguing the owners should have restrained themselves is just fairy tale talk. Owners have three options:

- Set a self-imposed budget alone, in which case you lose your star players and become a feeder team as your opponents take advantage of you.

- Set a self-imposed budget in cooperation with your neighbors - OOPS! Collusion. Go to jail.

- Set a league-wide budget the LEGAL way, by doing exactly what they're doing.

Somebody needs to give these players a high school economics lesson.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

lol...how on earth did the players negotiation contracts in "bad faith"?

I'm pretty sure both the owners and the players knew a lockout was coming. The players were perfectly free to wait until a new CBA was signed to sign with a team...I wonder why they didn't?

Just perhaps it was because they knew the salary cap was likely going to be significantly reduced under the new CBA...and the fact that they negotiated high signing bonuses indicates they new a long lockout was possible.

 

[McJeety McJeet]

lol...how on earth did the players negotiation contracts in "bad faith"?

I guess negotitated in bad faith is the incorrect term. They negotitated it knowing that it would be subject to the upcoming CBA and likely to be less than full value.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Owners vs. Players: Still tied at 1 in the 102nd Overtime Period. Long intermission.

Intermission: Where Fehr explains the differences between a toonie, a loonie and eight quarters.

I did like that reference of yours from earlier.

 

[Frosty415]

I'm pretty sure both the owners and the players knew a lockout was coming. The players were perfectly free to wait until a new CBA was signed to sign with a team...I wonder why they didn't?

Just perhaps it was because they knew the salary cap was likely going to be significantly reduced under the new CBA...and the fact that they negotiated high signing bonuses indicates they new a long lockout was possible.

100% Agreed.

Players also knew a lockout was coming when Fehr came onboard.

 

[Matador]

Can someone who understands escrow and the leagues proposal take a look at this for me? It appears the league latest offer was a salary freeze instead of an actual rollback. Players contracts would have been honoured in full, under 5% growth. I ran the numbers as I understand escrow and the leagues proposal, but I am still not sure this is correct.

 

[billybudd]

As far as I understand it Parise's and Suter's contracts are identical. Also it was reported that they left money on the table from other teams. If they 'left money on the table' because the contract they signed with the Wild had more signing bonus money (thus guaranteed) attached then they knew exactly what (and why) they were doing.

First of all, agents always say their client "left money on the table." That doesn't mean they did.

Second of all, Suter's big, moronic, won't-budge criteria in signing was that he'd only play for a team in the American mid-west. Which would wipe out any team that could afford and was inclined to pay more than Minnesota did.

And third, I've already addressed the up-front money as not having anything to do with "bad faith" by citing a) life insurance and b) the fact that signing bonuses are not subject to escrow, which had been rising.

 

[chum]

question..

if we lose this season, is a year taken off from player's contract? (I forgot what happened in the last lock out)

 

[billybudd]

Can someone who understands escrow and the leagues proposal take a look at this for me? It appears the league latest offer was a salary freeze instead of an actual rollback. Players contracts would have been honoured in full, under 5% growth. I ran the numbers as I understand escrow and the leagues proposal, but I am still not sure this is correct.

Escrow would have been bad in year 2. Players' salaries would be reduced via escrowfrom the 54-ish percent in revenue they were promised to 50%, depending on, of course, on the yet-to-be-decided details of the make-whole provision. By year 4, factoring in growth and the accounting changes Bettman wanted to how cap-contracts are counted, escrow would have been nothing. Less than it's ever been.

In the interim, Claude Giroux and Kris Letang probably get screwed, because the cap dollars they've earned won't exist in the numbers they would otherwise have been worth.

Funny, though, that we don't see them complaining. Instead we see Derek Roy and Ryan Suter...guys who've already locked up more than they're worth playing a dirge on the world's smallest violin.

 

[JAX]

I agree with this analysis. Fehr should trade the future for today, like the government, by asking for a longer term deal 10+ years, in exchange for a higher linked percentage than 50%. That way, the NHL has to fix their own mess without the players taking it in the shorts. They always talk about the next CBA, same thing happening, so why not push it out as far as you can, and get all you can get today. Certainly today's players would go for that, do you really think they care about the next CBA if it is 12 years out?

the prob with a long cba is it might not work well for 1 side or the other. if the current cba ran another 5 years many of the leagues teams would be suffering. but of course due to the gracious nature of the PA they would have played through while negotiating a deal.

 

[billybudd]

question..

if we lose this season, is a year taken off from player's contract? (I forgot what happened in the last lock out)

yes, unless the terms of the new CBA stipulate otherwise, which they won't.

 

[Ducks DVM]

So taking signing bonuses to avoid having to pay your fair share of escrow (and thus making the rest of the players in the league pay your share for you) is somehow ethical?

 

[JAX]

Bad faith would be not intending to honor the contract. But everybody and their brother knew the contracts were subject to the CBA. It's 100% legal and entirely over the table. And when the players saw half the league writing checks with red ink and no other major sports league offering more than 50% of revenues, they knew the NHL would be coming after them. Deal with it. There's nothing unconscionable, and certainly nothing legally shady about what they're doing.

Again, arguing the owners should have restrained themselves is just fairy tale talk. Owners have three options:

- Set a self-imposed budget alone, in which case you lose your star players and become a feeder team as your opponents take advantage of you.

- Set a self-imposed budget in cooperation with your neighbors - OOPS! Collusion. Go to jail.

- Set a league-wide budget the LEGAL way, by doing exactly what they're doing.

Somebody needs to give these players a high school economics lesson.

I'm sure master Fehr took care of everything they need to know.....

 

[ottawah]

That's not fair to the players; they have zero control over how well a particular hockey organization is run, and thus how profitable a team is.

Yes, and how many people lost their jobs in the recession despite having zero control? How many auto workers had to take a cut?

Fair has nothing to do with it. Life is not fair. And given what these players get, either in absolute salary or compared to their peer sports, you cannot argue whats offered is any less than fair.

 

[ottawah]

It appears Fehr's mandate is to de-link player salaries from NHL revenue. I believe that if the PA offered something like 54/52/50/50/50... we'd be watching hockey. The NHL can't make the offer, if they did Fehr would tuck it in his pocket (much like Bettman did last time) and tell the players their plan is working.

OK, you have said two competing thinks. You said they want to delink, then suggest a percentage. Does that means Fehr will change his mind?

 

[billybudd]

So taking signing bonuses to avoid having to pay your fair share of escrow (and thus making the rest of the players in the league pay your share for you) is somehow ethical?

In the sense that Suter's screwing his buddies out of money, no, I wouldn't call it ethical.

However, it is not an example of "bad faith" negotiation with LEIPOLD, which is what it was used as an example of.

Promising there will be no salary rollback, then personally attempting to get one two weeks later, which is what Leipold did, IS an example of "bad faith" negotiation with Suter.

But if I were a player who came out of college with a bachelors' in economics and an X million contract with no bonuses and an x million cap hit and saw Suter's (and Myers etc etc) contracts, no, I wouldn't be happy about it.

 

[billybudd]

OK, you have said two competing thinks. You said they want to delink, then suggest a percentage. Does that means Fehr will change his mind?

He's saying if Fehr offered what he suggests instead of trying to de-link salaries from revenue there'd be hockey now.

What Fehr wants didn't work as a negotiating tactic when Goodenow offered it in 2004 and it's not going to work now.

 

[JAX]

He's saying if Fehr offered what he suggests instead of trying to de-link salaries from revenue there'd be hockey now.

What Fehr wants didn't work as a negotiating tactic when Goodenow offered it in 2004 and it's not going to work now.

Well Fehr did recommend to Goodenow if he didn't want the cap he would have to sit out 2 years+

Maybe he will try to show Goodenow how it's done.

 

[haseoke39]

Well Fehr did recommend to Goodenow if he didn't want the cap he would have to sit out 2 years+

Maybe he will try to show Goodenow how it's done.

Did he really?

I love it I love it I love it please try it now. Tell the owners you believe in things, like losing money for your clients, and you're willing to go the extra mile to deliver it.

 

[McJeety McJeet]

Well Fehr did recommend to Goodenow if he didn't want the cap he would have to sit out 2 years+

Maybe he will try to show Goodenow how it's done.

Doesn't matter. The players won't let it go that far they can't afford to. Hockey starts up next September at the latest. If the owners scuttle another season I hope they don't ease up on the PA in the end.

 

[haseoke39]

Doesn't matter. The players won't let it go that far they can't afford to. Hockey starts up next September at the latest. If the owners scuttle another season I hope they don't ease up on the PA in the end.

They won't. Last time they let the players keep working them over even once a cap was agreed to, so that they got this ridiculous 57% provision that's putting half the league under water. Owners aren't going to go nuclear without getting exactly what they need this time, no whining high school dropouts withstanding.

 

[JAX]

Doesn't matter. The players won't let it go that far they can't afford to. Hockey starts up next September at the latest. If the owners scuttle another season I hope they don't ease up on the PA in the end.

Well apperently they didn't learn their lesson in 04-05. But your right the only thing that will end the lockout is the players forcing the hand of the PA leadership. And I also hope the league goes postal on them, they set a precedent last time that playing chicken won't work so the brilliant minds of the PA thought they will try it again.......I guess they didn't learn their lesson.

 

[Sydor25]

lol...how on earth did the players negotiation contracts in "bad faith"?

Maybe Suter and Parise knew that the NHLPA was going after escrow and de-linking their salaries in the next CBA. They knew that they would have to get most of their money in a signing bonus because they would probably lose a season going after escrow and possibly the cap.

Who knows what both sides knew about the CBA negotiations?

 

[McJeety McJeet]

Well apperently they didn't learn their lesson in 04-05. But your right the only thing that will end the lockout is the players forcing the hand of the PA leadership. And I also hope the league goes postal on them, they set a precedent last time that playing chicken won't work so the brilliant minds of the PA thought they will try it again.......I guess they didn't learn their lesson.

The PA is playing chicken because its one of the only cards they can play. Decertification being the other (does anybody know the advantages of this approach for the players, I'm not very familiar with the details). The PA is holding the game hostage hoping that the NHL gives up before the damage is too great IMO.

 

[ColePens]

limit