Lockout Looming (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread) - Part II

[kdb209]

James Mirtle summarizes the most recent NHL & NHLPA proposals:

Measuring the NHL-NHLPA divide: Oh, about $1-billion

Click to read more...

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Just came to talk about that. I just read an article with some interesting quotes from an annonomys " former flyer" who is at the meetings.

http://mobile.philly.com/sports/flyers/?wss=/philly/sports/flyers&id=169586796&viewAll=y#more



"I remember during the last lockout, we were pounding our fist on the table saying that we won't accept a [salary] cap under any circumstances," said one former Flyer before walking into the meetings on Wednesday. "By February, we took the cap. If we were going to cave, why didn't we just do it from the start so we could actually get paid?

"A lot of players have a lot of different views. For me, I have 1, maybe 2 years left. By voting to play hardball, I could effectively be ending my career. Then again, should we just lie down and take it from the owners? It will be interesting to see how everyone else feels."

My guess that is Simon Gagne or Martin Biron. Or maybe Vinny Propsal.

 

[McNasty]

Absolutely, and I hope the NHLPA knows that. From then on, the offers will get worse and worse.

I don't believe that for a second. The NHL isn't bleeding money like it was back in 04-05 and while some teams struggled last year they have a huge TV contract that kicks in this season, and you would think NBC has itself protected against a lockout. I think it gets done in November, and I think it's entirely based on the owners willingness to back off of a steep initial roll back.

They're getting closer, the big difference is the owners want the players to give back money now and then make it back if the league continues to grow whereas the players are content to limit the huge offseason cap raises if it means they don't lose a ton of money they've already signed for upfront in huge escrow payments.

Both sides have some bush league negotiating tactics here, but I'm having a hard time blaming the players for being to standoffish while the owners are basically trying to recoup some of the money they've already committed. It's a slap in the face to put the onus on the players to give back upfront money to promote the health of the league while the owners have been sinking money to keep Phoenix afloat rather then let someone move the team to a market that may actually support it.

 

[Muffin]

I don't believe that for a second. The NHL isn't bleeding money like it was back in 04-05 and while some teams struggled last year they have a huge TV contract that kicks in this season, and you would think NBC has itself protected against a lockout. I think it gets done in November, and I think it's entirely based on the owners willingness to back off of a steep initial roll back.

They're getting closer, the big difference is the owners want the players to give back money now and then make it back if the league continues to grow whereas the players are content to limit the huge offseason cap raises if it means they don't lose a ton of money they've already signed for upfront in huge escrow payments.

Both sides have some bush league negotiating tactics here, but I'm having a hard time blaming the players for being to standoffish while the owners are basically trying to recoup some of the money they've already committed. It's a slap in the face to put the onus on the players to give back upfront money to promote the health of the league while the owners have been sinking money to keep Phoenix afloat rather then let someone move the team to a market that may actually support it.

The NHL still gets paid even if there's a lock out, but it'll tack on an extra year to their contract with NBC.

 

[McNasty]

The NHL still gets paid even if there's a lock out, but it'll tack on an extra year to their contract with NBC.

Thanks, does anybody know the details of the NFL lockout. Wasn't the NFLPA able to successfully argue that the NFL couldn't use the TV money if there was no season?

 

[patnyrnyg]

This old argument again. So the best table tennis players should be paid millions as well? Or the best coal miners?

If the attendance and prices paid to watch the best table tennis players in the world play were similar to that of say tennis, then yes they would be making millions. If the best coal miner could prove he was generating the revenues, he would get millions, too. Dumb comparison.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Like I said, I don't care how they do it, just limit the players say, end of story.

I see your profile says Zurich, Switzerland. Have you ever lived in North America? If you really thought your ideas would work here, you are crazy. They had this at one point. It resulted in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Then Curt Flood challenged MLB's reserve clause and won. Changed pro sports in this country forever.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

If the players are hell bent on not taking less then the $1.87b they received last year, perhaps a deal could be worked out where they players take something like 57-55-53-50-50-50 percent of revenue with the caveat that the $1.87b is the "floor" of what they will be paid.

This would save face for the players as they won't earn less in a new deal.

This could work for the owners if they are confident (and there are many reasons to be) that revenue growth will continue over the next 5-6 years and they get to get revenue sharing down to 50-50 like most other cap leagues.

Just a thought, be nice.

That is what the players, in essence, are asking for.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Well, in most european leagues, there is no revenue sharing and the league just adjustes the rules as they think its right without having to ask for the players permission.

Right, and this is why all the best hockey players comes to North America to play. As for soccer, they have different leagues throughout europe to which they can bounce.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

If all the other Leagues are splitting 50-50, why can't the NHL? This is all about greed both on the owners and the players part and we the fans are gonna pay for it. Yet we stand around and do nothing. In fact I'm surprised there isn't rioting in the streets of Toronto or Montreal at this point where they'll be robbed of their national game and favourite pasttime.

It's sickening that multi-millionaires actually have the guts to even behave this way, be they owners or players.

The NHL PA is proposing a path to get the league nearly there there.

That means they're probably willing to negotiate a path to get the league all the way there.

But it will be over the course of the contract. Not tomorrow. And the players will probably only agree to it if it assumes a certain level of growth.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Originally Posted by IslesNorway

If all the other Leagues are splitting 50-50, why can't the NHL? This is all about greed both on the owners and the players part and we the fans are gonna pay for it. Yet we stand around and do nothing. In fact I'm surprised there isn't rioting in the streets of Toronto or Montreal at this point where they'll be robbed of their national game and favourite pasttime.

It's sickening that multi-millionaires actually have the guts to even behave this way, be they owners or players.

all the other leagues do not have free agency which is as restrictive as the NHL.

 

[McNasty]

Originally Posted by IslesNorway
all the other leagues do not have free agency which is as restrictive as the NHL.

They also don't have fully guaranteed contracts.

 

[Sanderson]

That is what the players, in essence, are asking for.

No, not really. The only part that is similar is that the players want to keep all the money they are currently making. The rest is different.

Wanting to have automatic increases for the next few years, with absolutely no idea how things will move during that time, plus an automatic return to 57% for the last year, isn't anything like offering to move to 50%.

 

[Halibut]

Whenever I see the players talk about revenue sharing, it gets on my nerves. The players expect the owners to share their money...I don't see the players doing that. Maybe the league should suggest that ALL players make the same $ per game, and whoever plays...gets paid. I but the players wouldn't like that. So why should a rich team(like NYR) have to pay a lesser team.

If 18 teams are not making $, there is a problem. They need to fix it so EVERY team makes $. Imagine being an owner of a team at the bottom knowing that you have a minumum salary you have to spend and if you do so, you can't make $.

The players agreed to a cap to give the owners cost certainty, they've already done their bit to help the small markets.

It's obvious the league isnt opposed to revenue sharing, what else can you call how they've pumped up Pheonix for how many years now? How'd they do that without taking revenues from the other teams? They only question is how much revenue they are willing to share and how it gets done. The owners seem to want to do it by cutting player salaries with every new CBA and as little as possible out of their own pockets.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

No, not really. The only part that is similar is that the players want to keep all the money they are currently making. The rest is different.

Wanting to have automatic increases for the next few years, with absolutely no idea how things will move during that time, plus an automatic return to 57% for the last year, isn't anything like offering to move to 50%.

If Revenue rises, they get a smaller cut.

That helps the owners.

Fehr's proposal represents cost savings of nearly $1 Billion to the owners.

 

[PaPaDee]

Originally Posted by IslesNorway
all the other leagues do not have free agency which is as restrictive as the NHL.

How does the NHL compare to the other leagues in this respect?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

The players agreed to a cap to give the owners cost certainty, they've already done their bit to help the small markets.

It's obvious the league isnt opposed to revenue sharing, what else can you call how they've pumped up Pheonix for how many years now? How'd they do that without taking revenues from the other teams? They only question is how much revenue they are willing to share and how it gets done. The owners seem to want to do it by cutting player salaries with every new CBA and as little as possible out of their own pockets.

Maybe the league kept a team in Phx so they could have a poster child for the lockout/

 

[patnyrnyg]

How does the NHL compare to the other leagues in this respect?

basically, you become a UFA earlier and when you are an RFA, there is not these huge compensation packages.

 

[ninetynine*]

If Revenue rises, they get a smaller cut.

That helps the owners.

Fehr's proposal represents cost savings of nearly $1 Billion to the owners.

Except the snapback... which is player's choice.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The players agreed to a cap to give the owners cost certainty

They also got a cap floor linked to the ceiling at a fairly close percentage out of the agreement, which is sort of a salary certainty for the players.

 

[DL44]

Fehr presser that just happened:



-starts with how unified the players are
-one day at time. No artificial deadline for a deal.
-a lockout is the owners choice alone.
-players' approach: given the concessions last lockout, further player reductions unfair
-reiterating the players' proposal. Willing to partner with high revenue teams to solify small markets
-Shared Sacrifice: if players taking less money, where is the NHL cutting back their expenses to help reduce total costs
-Where are the concessions for the players like last time? (all the contract restriction talk, UFA age, ELC, length are ALL pro-owner)
-Owners new proposal reduction of 17.5%. (OMG!! - He goes 'you of you people listening.. what would you do in a similar circumstance (asked to take that big of a reduction)?' (- hate that he went there.)
-would like an agreement that stabilizes and provides incentives to grow.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Don Fehr said the last NHL proposal asked for a 17,5% salaries reduction by players. Not 9,7% like Gary Bettman said yesterday.

 

[DL44]

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Don Fehr said the last NHL proposal asked for a 17,5% salaries reduction by players. Not 9,7% like Gary Bettman said yesterday.

That's a misinterpratation of the numbers by Lavoie and misleading as well.
Fehr referenced 24% and then 17.5% numbers without any reference to Bettman or the 9.7% which was in refence to something else.

 

[Fugu]

Fehr presser that just happened:



-starts with how unified the players are
-one day at time. No artificial deadline for a deal.
-a lockout is the owners choice alone.
-players' approach: given the concessions last lockout, further player reductions unfair
-reiterating the players' proposal. Willing to partner with high revenue teams to solify small markets
-Shared Sacrifice: if players taking less money, where is the NHL cutting back their expenses to help reduce total costs
-Where are the concessions for the players like last time? (all the contract restriction talk, UFA age, ELC, length are ALL pro-owner)
-Owners new proposal reduction of 17.5%. (OMG!! - He goes 'you of you people listening.. what would you do in a similar circumstance (asked to take that big of a reduction)?' (- hate that he went there.)
-would like an agreement that stabilizes and provides incentives to grow.

Why isn't that a valid question? 7 yrs ago you took a 24% shave, and after record revenue growth, you're asked to take another one.

 

[ottawah]

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Don Fehr said the last NHL proposal asked for a 17,5% salaries reduction by players. Not 9,7% like Gary Bettman said yesterday.

Not surprising, thats actually a 7.1% difference. And its all about when you calculate it. Cap goes down 17.5% from last year, but if revenues do go up the 7.1% the union uses, then it will only be 9.7% this year.