New NHL proposal coming this week; NHL won't respond to counter unless salary cuts

[RangerBoy]

Players are starting to look real bad.

How?

The players want to get paid the money the teams agreed to pay them. The contracts were negotiated. They were signed and registered. Now the NHL wants the players to take salary cuts. The players haven't demanded the owners pay them more than they sign for.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

But those players can't be on the ice performing if not for the owners putting money behind them.

it's a partnership. Should be no more than 52/48

It isn't a partnership, never has been probably never will be.

I am not suggesting owners shouldn't be allowed to make money, the question is how much?

Overall the NHL is a profitable organization, yet some of its member are losing money.

The question as I see it, should the players take less so every owner makes a profit, with some owners making double digit profit, or should there be a true partnership where both side contribute?

My opinion is it should be the partnership, but the NHL has shown no desire to take this path.

When an owner goes broke, does the franchise disappear?

 

[RangerBoy]

Last October

Nevertheless, talks once again broke down on the proposed revenue split. Players Association executive director Billy Hunter said the league’s owners delivered the players an ultimatum that they must agree to a 50-50 split of the basketball-related income. Hunter said the players had proposed a band that would see them receive a minimum of 50 percent and a maximum of 53 percent each year, depending on how the league did financially.

When the owners didn’t budge on their 50-50 demand, Hunter said he and Fisher suggested the two sides table the revenue split and resume negotiations on other system issues.

They agreed to a band of 49-51.

Hunter said the owners then made clear they wouldn’t continue talks unless the players accepted the 50-50 proposal – a precondition the league has previously tried to attach to negotiations. “Take it or leave it,†Hunter said of the offer.

The players received 57 percent of BRI under the previous collective bargaining agreement.

“We’ve made concession after concession,†Hunter said. “… They knew when they presented what they were presenting to us that it wasn’t going to fly.â€

Sounds familiar.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_labor_talks_breakdown_102011

 

[tko78]

Will any of the pro-PA posters here dare to explain why should the players get more than 50-50 of the revenue? I dare you, explain me why.

Sure... The owners went to war last round asking for a cap and the price for that cap was 57/43.

The fact that the owners are experiencing buyers remorse (or didn't have the smartest financial forecaster in the world last round) doesn't mean that the PA should prop up an obviously flawed model and take less of a cut.

 

[Holdurbreathe]

No I'm saying they should use the NHL's framework or a slightly different but similar framework to negotiate.

so far this is what has happened from what I've seen:

NHL lowballed with 57-43 in favour of the league
NHLPA responds with a temporary 3 year discount then reverting back to the old CBA

essentially apples and oranges.

NHL responds with "well I dont even know what that proposal is, but here we'll up it to 54-46 in favour of the league"

NHLPA continues to be stubborn with their framework and simply adds a 4th temporary year.

These guys are talking a different language but for me they should be talking the NHL's language and then trying to gain something from that framework.

I just dont have sympathy for the players, they should negotiate more money now while they have the chance, instead of just waiting it out and cracking 5 months from now and giving in to most of the NHL's demands.Because really, the NHL gains far more from waiting it out than the NHLPA does. Hell the NHL get's paid 200-300 million from NBC if the lockout happens.

Why should the NHL set the framework??

The players want two things from what I can glean from their proposal, a genuine revenue sharing program and no immediate reduction in salary, but a hold on salaries allowing revenue growth to address the apparent issues.

The NHL doesn't want a true revenue sharing program and wants an immediate reduction in player salary.

The numbers included in the various proposals aren't the stumbling block, its the fundamentals that are.

Until the NHL makes a move in that regard, to accept in principle what the players want, they really haven't moved at all. The players on the other hand really have nothing to move on, other than to repeat what they believe addresses the issues.

 

[Seattle Totems]

No, all the revenues attached to the NHL are a result of the NHL BRAND. Players come and go, whether people acknowledge it now or not, it is the brand that resonates with consumers and that brand is made just as much possible by the people who are investing in it as those who are the face of it.

So it was the NHL brand that saved hockey in Pittsburgh in 2005. It must be Gary Bettman's face that sells all those NHL games too.

I hate to suggest this but I think people actually watch the game and get interested because of the players. They are the game.

 

[Butch 19]

The fact that the owners are experiencing buyers remorse doesn't mean that the PA should prop up an obviously flawed model and take less of a cut.

Maybe it does!

If it's flawed, it's flawed. Doesn't matter whose fault it may or may not be, it's still flawed.

This got ugly when the PA refused to start looking at the CBA back in Jan/Feb. Now it appears that the PA is stalling. Both sides have KNOWN there were issues for a long time and the PA waited and waited.... (sound familiar?)

 

[Seattle Totems]

Will any of the pro-PA posters here dare to explain why should the players get more than 50-50 of the revenue? I dare you, explain me why.

How bout you explain what "50-50" really means when you factor in all the revenues the league wants to leave out this time.

I can understand the NHL wanting a bigger share of the pie but they want to take everything they can and are offering the players absolutely nothing this time around.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Their whole go on twitter and bash bettman thing made me sour on them.. So childish

Latest one:

Jamal Mayers ‏@jamalmayers
I would love to be in the BOG meeting next week as Bettman tries to explain not negotiating off the PA's offer that helps21+teams#justashame

Considering the PA today was basically not negotiating off the NHL offer of this week, that's rich.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

This league is so ****ing cheap and greedy. Players dont make that much money compared to other leagues.

 

[Pilky01]

I support the players 100% but turning to Twitter to air their grievances is NOT smart business. I am disappointed in Donald Fehr for evidently not sufficiently preparing his constituents for an ownership disruption.

 

[Krishna]

This league is so ****ing cheap and greedy. Players dont make that much money compared to other leagues.

The players are so greedy. The league doesn't make that much compared to other leagues.

 

[StittsvilleJames]

Players are ridiculously short sighted. They don't have the deep pockets, and they don't have the decades like the owners do.

I can understand the guys with lifetime deals not minding losing a year, but the majority of these idiots are on 1, 2, 3, 4 year deals, and a lost season is at least a 25% paycut anyways!

Dummy dumbheads.

 

[Paranoid Android]

This league is so ****ing cheap and greedy. Players dont make that much money compared to other leagues.

You'd be surprised http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863

 

[KingKopitar11*]

The players are so greedy. The league doesn't make that much compared to other leagues.

I know. I just rather hate the league, this shouldn't be happening again so soon.

 

[Riptide]

Because 57/43 is MUCH closer to a fair number than 43/57 is, I though we agree on that.

I think both are unfair. I personally could live with something around 52-53% (depending on what other changes were made). My point was, why or how someone could call the owners asking for exactly what the players have as some atrocious demand... if one side thinks it's fair... then it shouldn't matter if the positions were reversed... fair's fair right?

The players want two things from what I can glean from their proposal, a genuine revenue sharing program and no immediate reduction in salary, but a hold on salaries allowing revenue growth to address the apparent issues.

The NHL doesn't want a true revenue sharing program and wants an immediate reduction in player salary.

The numbers included in the various proposals aren't the stumbling block, its the fundamentals that are.

Until the NHL makes a move in that regard, to accept in principle what the players want, they really haven't moved at all. The players on the other hand really have nothing to move on, other than to repeat what they believe addresses the issues.

Again, please show me where the NHL has said this. Last I heard, they increased RS from ~150m to 190m, but refused to really discuss it until the % was sorted out. I'm not saying changes couldn't be made. But the league refusing to spend time on it until the % is sorted out and they know exactly how much $ they have to play with isn't the same as saying they do not want a true RS system.

 

[Milhouse40]

Players will always lose this battle. They may used "for the fans" as much as they want....they don't negociate for the fans, they're doing it for themselves and nobody else and that's fine.

Why would a millionaire put millions on the table to acquiring a hockey franchise?
Make money.....and it make senses right?

But now the players wanna make sure that the owners don't make too much money.
They want this deal to be fair, they want to make the right amount the money


Owners making too much money...... so their franchise are too much healthy financially and will be able to live on for many many years....is that a bad thing?

And the players are asking for what?
Being able to buy a 1 000 000$ home instead of a $750 000????

How is that good for the game, the league and the fans?

A owners with too much money MIGHT put some of it back to make the experience better for the fans.

But players with too much money won't help anything related to the fans or hockey.

 

[Pepper]

Simple, because all the revenues attached to NHL hockey come from the product on the ice, which the last time I looked was the players.

You're right and wrong. True, all of the revenues come from the product on the ice but if you assume that all of the revenues come from CURRENT players on the ice, you're wrong. That's why NHL will win this fight.

 

[Kamal007]

The players are really starting to get on my nerves with their twitter campaign on bettman. Far too petty.

 

[Riptide]

I can understand the NHL wanting a bigger share of the pie but they want to take everything they can and are offering the players absolutely nothing this time around.

Other than their paycheques.

 

[sixgunsdad]

The biggest issue I would have with this line of reasoning (even if I believed all the claims made by the NHL, which I don't) is this: how is this the players' problem??

It becomes the players problem due to the fact they are sharing in the teams profit.

 

[Nalens Oga]

If Fehr seriously wants to take that stance, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

I think he means baseball is financially more stable.

Besides, it's unrealistic to expect a league not to have at least 5 teams every yr that are absolutely ****. The league should aim for parity so that we have 5-10ish cup winners every season, it gets a bit out of hand when you try to prop up the sink holes.

 

[Pepper]

How bout you explain what "50-50" really means when you factor in all the revenues the league wants to leave out this time.

I can understand the NHL wanting a bigger share of the pie but they want to take everything they can and are offering the players absolutely nothing this time around.

Yes, they want to take everything and leave players with only 1,65B in salaries. Dear god, how will the players ever survive with only making 2.2M per year on average. Maybe we should start a fundraiser for those poor unfortunate players who can't even afford to buy 5 new Ferraris per season on average. Imagine that, they will have to settle to having new 3 Porches even if they are making league minum. The horror!

 

[Wiems35*]

I think he means baseball is financially more stable.

Besides, it's unrealistic to expect a league not to have at least 5 teams every yr that are absolutely ****. The league should aim for parity so that we have 5-10ish cup winners every season, it gets a bit out of hand when you try to prop up the sink holes.

You mean contenders, right?

 

[Melrose Munch]

This league is so ****ing cheap and greedy. Players dont make that much money compared to other leagues.

Why is it when the players get 57% of the revenue that's okay... but when the league asks for 57% of the revenue they need to come back down to earth?

It was the league and not the players that decided to expand to these new areas. Problem teams should be contracted.