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

[Shrimper]

Fehr: 'We haven't ignored the owners, far from it.' #NHLPA

I'd say there offers are practically the same as ignoring.

 

[Fugu]

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.

We should force both sides to deal with current revenues as a percentage, or use the same growth factor for these projected numbers.


Edit: Did Bettman qualify his figure?

Fehr: 'We haven't ignored the owners, far from it.' #NHLPA

I'd say there offers are practically the same as ignoring.

And I would disagree with you. If you consider the NHLPA's offers the equivalent of ignoring the owners, how would --> you <-- characterize what the owners have done?

 

[Shrimper]

We should force both sides to deal with current revenues as a percentage, or use the same growth factor for these projected numbers.


Edit: Did Bettman qualify his figure?




And I would disagree with you. If you consider the NHLPA's offers the equivalent of ignoring the owners, how would --> you <-- characterize what the owners have done?

I'd say the owners are being far more willing to move their figures. Are the NHLPA?

 

[KINGS17]

We should force both sides to deal with current revenues as a percentage, or use the same growth factor for these projected numbers.


Edit: Did Bettman qualify his figure?




And I would disagree with you. If you consider the NHLPA's offers the equivalent of ignoring the owners, how would --> you <-- characterize what the owners have done?

Something along the lines of "here is the number that would make life great for us within the framework of the existing system. An existing system that we aren't giving up because we locked the players out an entire season to get it last time."

"Get back to us with a number you can live with, and we'll talk about the HRR % and revenue sharing numbers. Both of which the NHL has already moved on, showing that there is room for negotiation."

What has Fehr done?

 

[CerebralGenesis]

What has Fehr done?

Talk/vent to the media

 

[MaskedSonja]

Somehow I don't think Gary's presser this afternoon is going to be "by gosh, we've been wrong all along! The players have it right-we're going to go by their framework to get the season started on time-what were we thinking???"

(BTW-I'm not saying who has the right idea, I don't know myself-just using from "Gary's" perspective )

Hello Lockout....

Can't help but think if they STARTED with these efforts back in Late June, early July-we may have made ground by this point, maybe even getting ready for preseason. It is what it is I guess.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Bobby Mac is quite pessimistic on TV right now.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Growth factor, growth factor. I don't get why this is so complicated. Freeze the cap. Wait for the revenues to catch up to make it 51/52% (which by these nice projections from NHLPA should only be a few years right? ). NHLPA "wins" since they get to keep current money and they have already said they are willing to move on future percentage points. NHL "wins" by getting them down to the right percentage, just takes some time. All new revenue goes straight into NHL pocket.

Seems like a win win?

 

[Honeycutt]

If the players just want to play, why don't they play for free until this is settled. They can get paid for back wages once there is a new agreement. Also since they are not getting paid it makes the threat of a strike less likely since thay have not been getting paid and wont have money to live on while they are striking.

 

[Chili]

He said, she said, they said?

As fans, who cares?

The only important press conference will be the one that says 'GAME ON'.

Other hockey leagues can only dream of a fraction of these revenues but they never seem to have these labour issues.

Having been through this on a personal level, you never recoup the money you lose and that seldom seems factored into considerations.

If this was about player safety issues or finding a way to reduce ticket prices, etc. I could understand.

But it's pure greed all around.

If this goes on any significant length of time, they learned nothing 7 years ago.

 

[fasterthanlight]

Growth factor, growth factor. I don't get why this is so complicated. Freeze the cap. Wait for the revenues to catch up to make it 51/52% (which by these nice projections from NHLPA should only be a few years right? ). NHLPA "wins" since they get to keep current money and they have already said they are willing to move on future percentage points. NHL "wins" by getting them down to the right percentage, just takes some time. All new revenue goes straight into NHL pocket.

Seems like a win win?

It makes sense, yeah. But it seems as if the battle is ideological at this point.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

If the players just want to play, why don't they play for free until this is settled. They can get paid for back wages once there is a new agreement. Also since they are not getting paid it makes the threat of a strike less likely since thay have not been getting paid and wont have money to live on while they are striking.

Don't tell BizNasty this. It's their future, not ours. We just fund their future is all.

 

[Heaton]

Bobby Mac is quite pessimistic on TV right now.

Everyone should be IMO. The players feel 'informed' now - and they're all probably willing to risk their careers because of it. A lost season is inevitable, I think two seasons lost is extremely realistic.

 

[KINGS17]

Everyone should be IMO. The players feel 'informed' now - and they're all probably willing to risk their careers because of it. A lost season is inevitable, I think two seasons lost is extremely realistic.

I seriously doubt this, but if they're that stupid, so be it.

Instead of spending the kind of money I do on the NHL, I will be flying around the country during college football season watching the best games the country has to offer. My family and I have already discussed it.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

If the players just want to play, why don't they play for free until this is settled. They can get paid for back wages once there is a new agreement. Also since they are not getting paid it makes the threat of a strike less likely since thay have not been getting paid and wont have money to live on while they are striking.

Sort of the opposite of Fehr's insistance that they could play under the old CBA? I kind of like it, not that it has any chance of happening either.

 

[albator71]

I want the lockout to last 3-4 years, that would mean at least 10 franchises would have to fold, that's 230 job lost for the NHLPA, the NHL needs to down size anyway. I want the owners and the players to suffer.

 

[Fugu]

I'd say the owners are being far more willing to move their figures. Are the NHLPA?

Move from Draconian to very unreasonable? Okay, we grew revenues but we want 24%. No? Well, how about 17% then.

Tell me why the players should take any cut. The NHL has failed to make that case beyond saying the NFL and NBA did it.

I also just posted in this in another thread, but NHLPA share is 51% of total NHL revenues. It's only 57% if we look at hockey-related revenues, per the CBA definition of such. So league revenues are in fact $3.46 billion if the HRR figure is $3.1 billion.

 

[Fugu]

Something along the lines of "here is the number that would make life great for us within the framework of the existing system. An existing system that we aren't giving up because we locked the players out an entire season to get it last time."

"Get back to us with a number you can live with, and we'll talk about the HRR % and revenue sharing numbers. Both of which the NHL has already moved on, showing that there is room for negotiation."

What has Fehr done?

Refuse to be penned in by the NHL's draconian concept of how to deal with their "partners"?

 

[Ari91]

Growth factor, growth factor. I don't get why this is so complicated. Freeze the cap. Wait for the revenues to catch up to make it 51/52% (which by these nice projections from NHLPA should only be a few years right? ). NHLPA "wins" since they get to keep current money and they have already said they are willing to move on future percentage points. NHL "wins" by getting them down to the right percentage, just takes some time. All new revenue goes straight into NHL pocket.

Seems like a win win?

If the players want to avoid a lockout and care more about holding on to the money they have then what they may get in the future, then why haven't they offered this? Why not offer to freeze the cap and phase in a 50/50 split? This leaves no rollbacks BUT it also means that they aren't taking a raise for several years. Even if the owners have to be patient to see the return, it is an offer that provides cost certainty to them. But again, the players are forfeiting any raise for possibly 4 years (if they believe that the league will grow at 7% increase like they suggest). I don't know if the players would go for this as it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[bluesfan94]

Move from Draconian to very unreasonable? Okay, we grew revenues but we want 24%. No? Well, how about 17% then.

Tell me why the players should take any cut. The NHL has failed to make that case beyond saying the NFL and NBA did it.

I also just posted in this in another thread, but NHLPA share is 51% of total NHL revenues. It's only 57% if we look at hockey-related revenues, per the CBA definition of such. So league revenues are in fact $3.46 billion if the HRR figure is $3.1 billion.

Because unlike any other business, where a company can cut jobs, the NHL can't. Most companies, if they are losing money (semantically the NHL isn't, but in practice, 18/30 are, and just because the big earners are making more than all the losers doesn't help the owners of those 18 franchises. Yes, revenue sharing would help address this, but that's all a concession from the owners, and why should the wealthy teams' owners agree to that?) will try to lower costs. That is often done via employment. Even if the NHL weren't to do that, and were to look for other ways to lower costs, such as travel, etc, what would they do? Fly coach? Stay at cheap motels? I doubt the players would want that, too. I don't know how else the owners could lower costs without looking at the players. I have yet to find a reasonable way to do that.

A bit OT, but a lot of this has to do with the rising cost of fuel, specifically jet fuel, because that has created increased prices around the board. That hurts the owners, and the players don't have to deal with any of that. Basically, the players assume none of the financial risk in running a team; they don't pay for travel, hotels, food (i.e. team dinners, pregame spreads, etc), equipment, arena costs, staff, marketing, etc, and yet expect to reap over half of the reward. How is that fair?

 

[Fugu]

If the players want to avoid a lockout and care more about holding on to the money they have then what they may get in the future, then why haven't they offered this? Why not offer to freeze the cap and phase in a 50/50 split? This leaves no rollbacks BUT it also means that they aren't taking a raise for several years. Even if the owners have to be patient to see the return, it is an offer that provides cost certainty to them. But again, the players are forfeiting any raise for possibly 4 years (if they believe that the league will grow at 7% increase like they suggest). I don't know if the players would go for this as it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Can you ask the same question of the owners, who not only want to hold on to the money they have right now, but want 24% more.

 

[KINGS17]

Refuse to be penned in by the NHL's draconian concept of how to deal with their "partners"?

The owners are partners. The players are their employees.

I don't know where you got the idea that the players are partners in anything. Do they put up some of their money to market hockey? Do they pitch in for travel expenses? Any of them help out with paying for player development? The players ARE NOT partners in any way.

Having salaries linked to revenues is actually a good deal for the players. In other businesses employee salaries are linked to profits.

As I said before, the owners have already upped their revenue sharing offer and their offer on the players' share of the HRR pie.

What has Fehr done?

 

[WinterEmpire]

If the players want to avoid a lockout and care more about holding on to the money they have then what they may get in the future, then why haven't they offered this? Why not offer to freeze the cap and phase in a 50/50 split? This leaves no rollbacks BUT it also means that they aren't taking a raise for several years. Even if the owners have to be patient to see the return, it is an offer that provides cost certainty to them. But again, the players are forfeiting any raise for possibly 4 years (if they believe that the league will grow at 7% increase like they suggest). I don't know if the players would go for this as it seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I do believe that the Players have been offering since the beginning to freeze their cap increase until it catches up to a certain percentage for the owners. Owners want a rollback now and are refusing to consider that.

 

[Ari91]

Move from Draconian to very unreasonable? Okay, we grew revenues but we want 24%. No? Well, how about 17% then.

Tell me why the players should take any cut. The NHL has failed to make that case beyond saying the NFL and NBA did it.

I also just posted in this in another thread, but NHLPA share is 51% of total NHL revenues. It's only 57% if we look at hockey-related revenues, per the CBA definition of such. So league revenues are in fact $3.46 billion if the HRR figure is $3.1 billion.

Tell me why the rich teams should pay even more to help other teams meet their expenses when those teams can simply adjust their expenses and be closer to a profit (or even make a profit)? It's not like teams aren't getting revenue sharing already.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Everyone should be IMO. The players feel 'informed' now - and they're all probably willing to risk their careers because of it. A lost season is inevitable, I think two seasons lost is extremely realistic.

No chance.

The players have already indicated a willingness to go where the owners want.

The question will be, how fast.

It's just going to take some skilled negotiating to come to a deal.